SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellee, Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“Aceto”), commenced this suit against defendants-appellants Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer CropScience LP (jointly “Bayer” or “appellants”) seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Specifically, Aceto sought a judgment that its “PROFINE 75” mark, associated with a herbicide product, does not infringe on Bayer’s trademark rights in their “PRO-LINE mark,” associated with a fungicide product. Before the District Court, Bayer counterclaimed, alleging that Aceto’s use of the PROFINE 75 mark was trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and unfair competition under New York common law. On May 16, 2012, the District Court concluded a two-day bench trial, after which it granted judgment in favor of Aceto. This timely appeal followed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

On appeal, Bayer claims that the District Court clearly erred in dismissing its claim of trademark infringement. “A claim of trademark infringement is analyzed under a familiar two-prong test. The test looks first to whether the plaintiffs mark is entitled to protection, and second to whether the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumers con *104 fusion as to the origin or sponsorship of the defendant’s goods.” Savin Corp. v. Savin Grp., 391 F.3d 439, 456 (2d Cir. 2004) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). 1 “The landmark case of Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (Friendly, /.), outlined a series of nonexclusive factors likely to be pertinent in addressing the issue of likelihood of confusion, which are routinely followed in such cases.” Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). “Six of the Polaroid factors relate directly to the likelihood of consumer confusion[:] ... [ (1) ] the strength of the plaintiffs mark; [ (2) ]the similarity of defendants’ mark to plaintiffs; [ (3) ] the proximity of the products sold under defendants’ mark to those sold under plaintiffs; [ (4) ] where the products are different, the likelihood that plaintiff will bridge the gap by selling the products being sold by defendants; [ (5) ] the existence of actual confusion among consumers; and [ (6) ] the sophistication of consumers.” Id. at 146-47. “The remaining two Polaroid factors, defendants’ good or bad faith and the quality of defendants’ products, are more pertinent to issues other than likelihood of confusion, such as harm to plaintiffs reputation and choice of remedy.” Id. at 147.

“A district court’s findings with regard to each individual factor are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, but the ultimate issue of the likelihood of confusion is reviewed de novo.” Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108, 116-17 (2d Cir. 2006). Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, substantially for the reasons articulated in its thorough and well-reasoned Opinion of July 30, 2012. See Aceto Agr. Chemicals Corp. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 10 Civ. 1770(AJN), 2012 WL 3095060 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2012). While no one factor under Polaroid is dispositive, we note the District Court’s findings that: (1) the two marks have “coexisted in the pesticide market for thirty-eight months without a single instance of product confusion reported”; (2) there was “minimal evidence” presented at trial that the two marks are sold in the same markets; (3) the products associated with the two marks are “primarily applied to different crops”; (4) numerous pesticides made by companies other than Bayer used the prefix “PRO” in their product name; (5) Bayer’s PROLINE mark is not arbitrary or fanciful, but suggestive, and thus not in the highest category of trademark strength deriving from inherent distinctiveness; (6) the packaging of the two marks “differs in imagery, color, and format” and “clearly indicates the name of the respective manufacturer”; (7) the purchasers of the two products are “commercial farmers” who are “sophisticated,” are “investing] significant amounts of money in crop protection products” important to “their livelihood” and are “not likely to make a casual purchase or application decision such that these two products would be confused.” Id. at *4-9.

We have reviewed all of appellants’ arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the July 31, 2012 judgment of the District Court.