The Authors' Take - Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trademark Protection

Likelihood of Confusion: The Irrational Basis of Trademark Protection


Of the “likelihood of confusion” (“LOC”) test, Professor Roger Bone expressed his consternation as follows: “The test is a mess. It produces bad results, is doctrinally incoherent, and lacks a sensible normative foundation. It chills socially valuable uses and facilitates excessively broad expansions of trademark law, and it includes factors that make no sense as predictors of likely confusion. Most importantly, the test erroneously assumes that consumer confusion is enough to warrant liability without regard to the harmful consequences or the moral wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct.”
Expansion of the LOC test dates from the late 1940s and early 1950s.  Then, in both the USA and Canada, important trademarks generally were denied protection unless it could be shown that the parties’ goods were in direct competition. As a reaction to cases where protection was denied against what we now see as blatant infringements, caselaw gradually at first, then increasingly expanded the scope of LOC. Such expansion occurred with fuzzy boundaries, so it is no wonder that many cases are brought today when the plaintiff’s real motive is to protect against loss of distinctiveness (i.e. dilution by blurring), in circumstances that do not support an action based on dilution simpliciter.
So, how to dial back the scope of LOC without legislative reform? It is submitted that increased emphasis should be placed on the defendant’s motive.  If a guilty motive cannot be inferred from all the relevant surrounding circumstances, but there is some doubt, the emphasis should shift to proof of damage or likely damage to the plaintiff, excluding damage to distinctiveness, which should exclusively be determined in accordance with statutory dilution law.  If there is no such proof, injunctive relief is not justifiable except in extraordinary cases, or cases involving blatant infringement or statute-defined dilution.
[This is an Authors' Take post, which provides readers with an insight into current IP scholarship, featuring preliminary comments and thoughts from authors of articles accepted for publication in forthcoming issues of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (OUP).

Autumn is here - and so is our October issue!

Below you can find our latest table of contents. Please note that you can access articles which have already been edited and processed through OUP's Advance Access feature - we currently have more than 35 articles ready for you to access before publication in print. For information on subscriptions, please visit the dedicated page at our OUP website - if you only wish to get access to a single article, purchase options will be available on the specific article page. 

Volume 13, Issue 10, October 2018

EDITORIAL

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 761–762, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy135

CURRENT INTELLIGENCE

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 763–764, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy130
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 764–766, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy128
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 766–768, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy129
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 768–771, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy134
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 771–772, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy133
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 772–773, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy124
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 773–775, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy123

ARTICLES

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 776–781, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy043
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 782–794, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy044
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 795–799, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy048
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 800–805, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy058
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 806–819, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy064
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 820–827, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy070

FROM GRUR INT.

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 828–836, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy131

IP IN REVIEW

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 837–838, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy095
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 838–839, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy099
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 13, Issue 10, 1 October 2018, Pages 840–841, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy102