Brand Confusion is a time-worn yet highly relevant topic for marketers, researchers, and regulatory agencies because colossal and ever-increasing number of legal cases on brand confusion have kept them interested in it.
This study aims to provide a commentary on worldwide scientific literature on brand confusion highlighting the evolution, advances, trends, and inter-connections. For this purpose, 200 documents on brand confusion published between 1985 and 2019 have been systematically reviewed using Bibliometrix, a software based on R Studio.
This study contributes by presenting a snapshot of the extant research on brand confusion and by providing useful insights for practitioners and researchers in terms of managerial implications and directions for further research.
This is the first study to explore a wide range of global interdisciplinary scholarly work on brand confusion and its causes.
AndrésA. (2010). Measuring academic research how to undertake a bibliometric study. Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
2.
BianX., WangK., SmithA., & YannopoulouN. (2016). New insights into unethical counterfeit consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4249–4258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.038
3.
CaoN., & CuiW. (2016). Overview of the text visualization techniques. In N. Cao & W. Cui (Eds), In introduction to text visualization (pp. 11–40). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6239-186-4
4.
ChabowskiR., & SamieeS. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing: A multi-method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0296-8
5.
ChoudhriA. F., SiddiquiA., KhanN. R., & CohenH. L. (2015). Understanding bibliometric parameters and analysis. RadioGraphics, 35, 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140036
6.
CohenD. (1986). Trademark strategy. Journal of Marketing, 50(1), 61–74.
7.
CohenD. (1991). Trademark strategy revisited. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 46–59.
8.
CushingG. D. (1891). On certain cases analogous to trade-marks. Harvard Law Review, 4(7), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/1322303
9.
Department of Homeland Security., U.S. (2020). Combating trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0124_plcy_counterfeit-pirated-goods-report_01.pdf
10.
DiamondA. (1981). Trademark problems and how to avoid them [Revised edition]. Crain Communications.
11.
DuguidP. (2016). Early marks: American trademarks before US trademark law. Business History, 60(8), 1145–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1246541
12.
EisendM., & Schuchert-GülerP. (2015). How consumers cope with buying counterfeits: Effects of dissonance reduction strategies. In Jr. L. Robinson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10963-3_91
13.
FoxmanE. R., BergerP. W., & CoteJ. A. (1992). Consumer brand confusion: A conceptual framework. Psychology & Marketing, 9(2), 123–141.
14.
GumpenbergerC., WielandM., & GorraizJ. (2012). Bibliometric practices and activities at the University of Vienna. Library Management, 33(3), 74–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121211217199
15.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., AndersonR. E., & TathamR. L. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
KarapapaS., & McDonaghL. (2019). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.
18.
LakshmanS. (2020, April 30). Intellectual Property rights | India remains on U.S. Priority Watch List. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/intellectual-property-rights-india-remains-on-us-priority-watch-list/article31467719.ece
19.
MercerJ. (2010). A mark of distinction: Branding and trade mark law in the UK from the 1860s. Business History, 52(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076790903281033
20.
Merediz-SolàI., & BarivieraA. F. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of bitcoin scientific production. Research in International Business and Finance, 50, 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.06.008
21.
MiaoulisG., & d'AmatoN. (1978). Consumer confusion & trademark infringement: Presents a new, broadened concept of consumer confusion, illustrated by research results in the Tic Tac® case. Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1249885
22.
MorrinM., LeeJ., & AllenbyG. M. (2006). Determinants of trademark dilution. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 248–257. https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/33/2/248/1849567?redirectedFrom=fulltext
23.
OECD/EUIPO. (2016). Trade in counterfeit and pirated goods: Mapping the economic impact. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252653-en
24.
Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2019). 2019 special 301 report. Retrieved, 12 April 2020, fromhttps://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Special_301_Report.p
25.
PendleburyD. A. (2010). White paper: Using bibliometrics in evaluating research. Australian National University. https://services.anu.edu.au/files/system/Pendlebury_White_Paper.pdf
26.
PorterM. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
27.
RiesA., & TroutJ. (1986). Positioning: The battle for your mind. McGraw-Hill.
28.
RomaniukJ., SharpB., & EhrenbergA. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15(2), 42–54.
29.
RostaingH. (2003). Basic principles of bibliometrics. applications to research development. The Competitive Intelligence and Industrial Vision in the 21st Century (p .8). Shanghai Institute of Technology.
30.
SangsueP. (2014). A photo elicitation study on brand confusion in tourism destinations. In S. McCabe (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism marketing (pp. 239–248). Routledge.
31.
SchechterF. I. (1927). The rational basis of trademark protection. Harvard Law Review, 40(6), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.2307/1330367
32.
SedighiM. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (case study: The field of informetrics). Library Review, 65(½), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr-07-2015-0075
33.
SimonsonI. (1994). Trademark infringement from the buyer perspective: Conceptual analysis and measurement implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569401300201
34.
SmallH. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
35.
Tabberone. (n.d.). The history of trademark law. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/History/History.shtml
36.
TempleS. (2019). Word clouds are lame. towards data science. https://towardsdatascience.com/word-clouds-are-lame-263d9cbc49b7
37.
The National Law Review. (2020, May 14). China Launches “Iron Fist” Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Plan for 2020. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/china-launches-iron-fist-intellectual-property-law-enforcement-plan-2020
38.
TroutJ., & RivkinS. (1995). The new positioning. McGraw-Hill.
39.
TroutJ., & RivkinS. (2000). Differentiate or die. East-West Books.
40.
VanaukenB. (2015). Brand aid: A quick reference guide to solving your branding problems and strengthening your market position. American Management Association.
41.
WalshG., & MitchellV.-W. (2005). Consumer vulnerability to perceived product similarity problems: Scale development and identification. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146705280613
42.
WilcoxK., KimH., & SenS. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.247
43.
XuX., ChenX., JiaF., BrownS., GongY., & XuY. (2018). Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 204, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003
44.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1995). Defending your brand against imitation: Consumer behaviour, marketing strategies, and legal issues. Quorum Books.
45.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (2006). The psychology behind trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-08556-000
46.
ZhaoD., & StrotmannA. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks. Morgan and Claypool Publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272174763
