Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Trademarks such as brand names may be the most important assets of many companies, but their value depends on the ability to protect them from infringement. In this research, two key tests of trademark infringement are examined: likelihood of confusion and genericness. On the basis of a conceptual analysis, the author evaluates several alternative measures of trademark confusion and genericness, including both existing and new techniques. These measures are contrasted in two large-scale field studies with about 1500 consumers. The results indicate that estimates of likelihood of confusion and genericness are highly sensitive to the particular method employed, partly because the underlying states of consumer confusion and genericness are fuzzy and not well defined. The author concludes with a discussion of the research implications for (1) our understanding of consumer trademark confusion and genericness, (2) the measurement of trademark infringement, and (3) the use of survey-based measures in public policy and legal disputes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Michael J.

(1991), “Who Must Be Confused and When? The Scope of Confusion Actionable Under Federal Trademark Law,” Trademark Reporter, 81 (May/June), 209–59.

American Thermos Products Co. v. Aladdin Industries (1962), 207 F. Supp. 9, 20, 134 USPQ 98 (D Conn).

Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co. (1921), 272 F. 505, 509 (SDNY).

Biemer

Paul P.

, Groves

Robert M.

, Lyberg

Lars E.

, Mathiowetz

Nancy A.

, and Seymour

Sudman

(1991), Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Boal

Bradlee R.

(1983), “Techniques for Ascertaining Likelihood of Confusion and the Meaning of Advertising Communications,” Trademark Reporter, 73, 405–35.

Campbell

Donald T.

and Fiske

Donald W.

(1959),“Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix”Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Cohen

Dorothy

(1986),“Trademark Strategy”Journal of Marketing, 50 (January), 61–74.

Cohen

Dorothy

(1991),“Trademark Strategy Revisited”Journal of Marketing, 55 (July), 46–59.

ConAgra, Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Company (1992), 784 F. Supp., 700-738.

10.

Churchill

Gilbert A.

(1979),“A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs”Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64–73.

11.

E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida International (1975), 393 F. Supp. 50-2, 185 USPQ 597 (EDNY).

12.

Ericsson

K. Anders

and Simon

Herbert A.

(1984), Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Evans

Lawrence E.

and Gunn

David M.

(1989),“Trademark Surveys”Trademark Reporter, 79, 1–37.

14.

Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston, Inc. (1980), 725 F2d 500, 504, 208 USPQ, 975.

15.

Folsom

Ralph H.

and Teply

Larry L.

(1988),“Surveying “Genericness” in Trademark Litigation”Trademark Reporter, 78 (1), 1–31.

16.

Green

Paul E.

and Srinivasan

(1990),“Conjoint Analysis in Marketing Research: New Developments and Directions”Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 3–19.

17.

Kahneman

Daniel

and Amos

Tversky

(1982),“On the Study of Statistical Intuitions”in Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Kahneman

Daniel

, Paul

Slovic

, and Amos

Tversky

, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 493–508.

18.

Leeds

Daphne R.

(1982),“Trademarks—Our American Concept and Confusion and Trademark Psychology”Trademark Reporter, 72 (6), 439–49.

19.

Leiser

Allan W.

and Schwartz

Carl R.

(1983),“Techniques for Ascertaining Whether a Term is Generic”Trademark Reporter, 73 (July/August), 376–90.

20.

McCarthy

J. Thomas

(1984), Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 2nd ed. Rochester, NY: The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co.

21.

Morgan

Fred W.

(1990), “Judicial Standards for Survey Research: An Update and Guidelines,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 59–70.

22.

Orne

Martin T.

(1962),“On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications”American Psychologist, 17 (November), 776–83.

23.

Payne

John W.

, Bettman

James R.

, and Johnson

Eric J.

(1992),“Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective”Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87–131.

24.

Simonson

Itamar

(1993a), “Get Closer to Your Customers by Understanding How They Make Choices,” California Management Review, 35 (4), 68–84.

25.

Simonson

Itamar

(1993b),“The Effect of Survey Method on Likelihood of Confusion Estimates: Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Test”Trademark Reporter, 83 (May/June), 364–93.

26.

Simonson

Itamar

(1994),“An Empirical Investigation of the Meaning and Measurement of Genericness”Trademark Reporter, 84 (March/April), 199–223.

27.

Squirt Company v. Seven-Up Company (1979), 207 USPQ 12 (ED Mo).

28.

Swann

Jerre B.

(1979),“The Validity of Dual Functioning Trademarks: Genericism Tested By Consumer Understanding Rather Than Consumer Use”Trademark Reporter, 69 (5), 357–76.

29.

Swann

Jerre B.

and Palladino

Vincent N.

(1988),“Surveying “Genericness”: A Critique of Folsom and Teply”Trademark Reporter, 78 (2), 179–96.

30.

Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc. (1976), 531 F.3d 366, 381-82, 188 USPQ 623 (CA 7).

31.

Weiss

Peter

(1990), “The Use of Survey Evidence in Trademark Litigation: Science, Art or Confidence Game?” Trademark Reporter, 80 (1), 71–86.

Trademark Infringement from the Buyer Perspective: Conceptual Analysis and Measurement Implications

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References