Internet Surveys for Evaluating Trademark Infringement and Deceptive Advertising

• Author: Roger Tourangeau and Shari Seidman Diamond
• Pages: 287-308

287

13

Internet Surveys for

Evaluating Trademark

Infringement and

Deceptive Advertising

By Roger Tourangeau and Shari Seidman Diamond

INTRODUCTION

The computerrevolution thathastransformed American life in general

hasalsotransformed howsurveys areconducted, withcomputerized

methodsof datacollection progressivelyreplacing theirpaper-and-

pencil predecessors.During the 1970s,computer-assisted telephone

interviewing (CATI) became the standardmethod fortelephone

interviewing and, overthe next couple of decades,computer-assisted

personal interviewing (CAPI) and lateraudio computer-assisted self-

interviewing (ACASI) supplanted moretraditional methodsforface-

to-face interviews.1The next majordevelopmentin the evolution of

surveys,alreadywell underway,isthe useofthe Internettocollect

surveydata. Among surveyand marketresearchers,including those

conducting trademarksurveys,the web isincreasinglyseen asan

attractivealternativetomail, telephone, orin-person surveys.

Thepurposeofthischapteristodiscussthe st rengthsand

weaknessesof using the Internettocollectdatafortrademarkand

deceptiveadvertising surveys.(In thischapter,the terms“web survey,”

1. R M. G,FJ.F,M P. C,JM. L,

ES,&RT,SM,ch. 5(2004)

(providesadetailed discussion of thesetrends).

Section V

288

“Internetsurvey,”and “online survey” areused interchangeably.) Thischapterbegins

byplacing Internetsurveys within the context of the surveyresearchmethodsgenerally

accepted bycourts in evaluating trademarkinfringementand deceptiveadvertising. It

then discussesthe potential advantagesof Internetsurveys.Finally,itreviews sources

of errorthatariseinall surveys and the role theyarelikelytoplayin differenttypes

of Internetsurveys.The discussion herefocusesprimarilyon the comparison between

web surveys and the methodstraditionallyused toconductsurveys in casesinvolving

allegationsof trademarkinfringementand deceptiveadvertising.

SURVEY RESEARCH FOR EVALUATING TRADEMARK

INFRINGEMENT AND DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING

Surveyevidence in trademarkcaseshasprovided asubstantial improvementon the

earlierevidence offered toprovelikelihood of confusion;thatevidence consisted of

calling alimited numberof witnessestotestifythattheyhad experienced confusion.2

Byproviding asystematic presentation of responsescollected byneutral interviewers

tostandardized questionsasked of asample of consumers unaffiliated witheither

party,surveys offermorecompleteand unbiased information on the relevantissues

of consumerperception.3

Researchers havedeveloped several approachestoidentifyand test eligible

respondents in thesesurveys.Ifaclaim involvesmerelythe sound of the mark, a

telephone interviewisall thatisrequired, but in most situationsakeyelementof the

claim includesavisual stimulus.Thus,the typical surveydesign hasused aface-to-

face interviewin which the consumerviews an allegedlyinfringing trademark(or

an allegedlydeceptiveadvertisement)and answers aseriesof questionsabout their

reactionstothe markoradvertisement.Tolocateand test eligible consumers (that

is,thosewho arelikelytopurchasethe allegedlyinfringing productorservice or

tobemisled in theirpurchasing behaviorbyan allegedlydeceptiveadvertisement),

researchers haveconducted theirsurveys in locationswheresuch consumers can

be found. The most common location hasbeen ashopping mall whereconsumers

can be approached, screened foreligibility (e.g., adults who havepurchased orare

likelytopurchasethe relevantproductwithin ayear), and taken toafacility where

theycan viewthe stimulus and respond tothe questionson the survey.Thesesurvey

methodsdifferfrom thoseused in the surveys based on probability samplesconducted

bygovernmentand academic researchers thataredesigned toproduce precise

quantitativeestimates(described below). The face-to-face surveys done in trademark

cases,incontrast,typicallyusethe nonprobability sampling approach favored in

2.E.g., Life Savers Corp. v.Curtiss CandyCo., 87F. Supp. 16(N.D. Ill. 1949) (75or80witnesses

testified theyhad been confused, until the court decided “tohearno moreofit” duetothe cumulative

natureofthe testimony).

3.ShariSeidman Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research, in R M 

S E 362,372 (Federal Judicial Center/National Academyof Sciences,3ded., 2011).