Each of the DuPont factors presents a question of fact, which we test for substantial evidence when called into question on appeal. Omaha Steaks Int'l v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Varying weight may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence presented.

Trek correctly recognizes that although raw numbers of product sales and advertising expenses may be misleading, the opposer can introduce evidence to contextualize these numbers. See Appellant's Br. 31-32 (citing Bose, 293 F.3d at 1375); see also Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the opposer "provided considerable contextual evidence of the type of advertisements and promotions it uses to gain sales"). Trek argues that the Board's analysis was "legally flawed" because the Board disregarded Trek's "considerable contextual evidence for the type of advertisements and promotions it has used to gain sales." Appellant's Br. 31-32, 35; see also id. at 33-34, 38.

The Board concluded that the foreign websites have no probative value for determining likelihood of confusion in the United States, and many of the U.S. websites have limited probative value "inasmuch as they concern goods and services other than clothing." J.A. 14; see Omaha Steaks Int'l Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he present analysis only involves goods like those being offered by the parties to the 'relevant public,' while third-party use outside of that relevant market is meaningless."). The Board acknowledged that roughly ten of the websites offered clothing and thus had relevance to determining the weakness of Lynch's BEAST MODE mark but found that the evidence of those ten websites "does not appear to approach the quantum of evidence of use" in prior cases in which marks were found to be weak.