Actually, it will be heard.
Sorry, but Brownell's has what appears to be a valid complaint here.
There are a number of things that a court would look at in a suit like this, including possible confusion potential (the reasonable person test), structural similarity, potential for dilution of the effect of the "standard," etc.
Essentially the courts tend to look at two things:
1. Is the item in question designed so as to mimic the style, function, feel, etc., of the plaintiff's item, and
2. If so, could this mimicing engender confusion among consumers?
If both are found to be true, relief will probably be granted. Even if only one is found to be true, partial relief can be granted.
A good case in point.
A number of years ago a company trying to break into the market for dry cleaning machine filter pads started producing pads stamped with their name, and made in a particular shade of green.
Only problem was, that shade of green had been used by the leader in the field for many years.
The leader in the field sued, contending that adoption of that specific color was done solely in an attempt to ride on the success of the leader's pads and take advantage of the confusion that would be created among consumers.
The new company, of course, contended that color isn't trademarkable, etc.
The courts found for the industry leader, and in doing so found that while the particular shade of green was not trademarked, did constitute part of the overall package & presentation for that manufacturer's pads, and that the new company's sole motive for selecting that color was to try to mimic the leader's product and siphon off sales through confusion.