Results of a laboratory study show the similarity in physical appearance of two brands (e.g. a store brand and a national brand) is significantly related to consumer perceptions of a common business origin between them. Other factors, particularly the actual origin of the two brands, also contributed to perceptions of common origin. Legal implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Air Reduction Company v. Airco Supply Company (1969). Del. Ch., 258 A. 2d 302, 3065.
2.
American Radio Stores v. American Radio & Television Stores Corporation (1930), Del. Ch. 150 A. 182.
3.
CalderBobby J., PhilipsLynn W., and TyboutAlice M. (1981), “Designing Research for Application,”Journal of Consumer Research8, no. 2 (Sept.), 197–207.
4.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Du Pont Safety Razor Corp. (1951) Del. Ch., 82 A. 2d 384, 387.
5.
FitzellPhilip B. (1983), Private Labels: Store Brands & Generic Products.Weastport, Conn.: AVI Publishing Co.
6.
GardnerDavid M. (1975), “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,”Journal of Marketing39 (Jan.), 40–46.
7.
JohnsonEric J. and TveskyAmos (1984), “Representations of Perceptions of Risks,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General113, no, 1 (March), 55–70.
LevittTheodore (1966), “Innovative Imitation,”Harvard Business Review (Sept.-Oct), 63–70.
10.
LevySidney J. and RookDennis W. (1981), “Brands, Trademarks, and the Law,” in Review of Marketing, EnisBen M. and RoeringKenneth J., eds. Chicago, Ill.: American Marketing Association, 185–94.
11.
MiaoulisGeorge and D'AmatoNancy (1978), “Consumer Confusion and Trademark Infringement,”Journal of Marketing (April), 48–55.
12.
PruzanskySandra, TverskyAmos, and CarrollJ. Douglas (1982), “Spatial versus Tree Representations of Proximity Data,”Psychometrika47, no. 1 (March), 3–19.
