Likelihood of Confusion

AuthorJerre B. Swann
Pages53-78
53
4
Likelihood of Confusion
By Jerre B. Swann
The plurality of reported Lanham Actsurveys address likelihood of
confusion.1Virtuallyfrom the onset,Eveready 2and Squirt3havebeen
the predominantformats. 4The twoarealike in theirneed forcontrol
cells. 5Theydiffer,however,in: (a) the “suggestiveness” of theirsource
question;(b) the meansbywhich theyreplicatethe market,access
marks,and facilitateinferences; (c) theircognitiveunderpinnings; (d) the
confusion factors theymeasure;and (e) the circumstancesunderwhich
theyappropriatelymayprovide evidence supporting (ornegating) acon-
clusion astoalikelihood of confusion.
In 1976,inUnion Carbide,the SeventhCircuitendorsed the
Evereadyformatin litigation involving the EVEREADY markfor
batteries.The formatis“unaided:respondents areshownonlythe
allegedlyinfringing mark/dress,and the “source confusion”question is
open-ended. Overtime, ithasbecome (withthe addition of acontrol)
the gold standard6in caseswherethe seniormarkistop of mind, i.e.,
highlyaccessible ( internally available)inmemory,enhancing the
likelihood thatitwill be cognitivelycued byasimilarjunioruse.
1. See Gerald L. Ford, Lanham ActSurveys Annual CumulativeUpdate(2010)in
the members-onlysection of the International TrademarkAssociation’s website, inta.org. If
surveys forthe National Advertising Division of the BetterBusiness Bureauareincluded,
likelihood of confusion and falseadvertising studiesmayapproach parity.
2.Union Carbide Corp. v.Ever-Ready,Inc., 531F.2d366,385–88 (7thCir.1976).
3.Squirtco v.Seven-Up Co., 628F.2d1086,1089 n.4, 1091 (8thCir.1980).
4. In caseslisted under“Likelihood of Confusionin the Annual Cumulative
Updatefor2009, whereformatcould be determined, approximately40%involved
Evereadydesignsand 35% Squirt designs.
5. The formats weredesigned beforethe general adventof control cell methodology
in consumerstudiesforuseinLanham Actcases.For,however,the reasonsstated below
and in the chapters in Section IV on controls,nosurveytesting causation can satisfythe
reliability mandatewithout acontrol cell tofacilitatetheinterpretation of test cell results.
6.See 6J. TMC,T UC §32:175
(4thed. 2008).
Section III
54
In 1980,inSquirtco,the EighthCircuitheld thatresults from aSquirt format
supported adistrictcourt finding astoapossibility of confusionbetween SQUIRT
and QUIRST fornoncola softdrinks.The formatisdoubly“aided:the respondent
isshownbothparties’ marks/dresses,and the “source confusion”question isclosed-
ended (itcontainsresponseoptions). Overtime, variants havecome tobeused in
caseswhereaccessibility of the seniormarkinmemory islowtononexistent,sothat
itmust be made externally available torespondents aspart of the surveydesign.
The analysisbelowconfirms,astocommerciallystrong brands,7Eveready’s
gold-standardstatus.AstoSquirt,the traditional format,withonlytwostimuli,
often triggers unacceptable demand effects. 8Astovariants (arrays and two-room
line-ups): (a) the source question issuggestive;9and (b) the formatmaycreatean
artificial marketplaceforrespondentassessments of brand similarity.10To coun-
teractsuggestiveness,aSquirt formatmust include arobust control;tocounteract
potential artificiality,the stimuli (asin the original Squirt)should be directlycom-
peting orcomplementary goods/serviceswithidentical orsubstantiallyoverlapping
consumers—i.e., the stimuli proximately tested in the formatshould appearorbe
encountered byconsumers in physical ortemporal proximity in the marketplace.
Wherecommercial strengthisuncertain, orin acircuitthatstressessimilarity
of marksasaconfusion factor, 11 asurveyexpert maywanttoconsider“going both
ways,12an asyetjudiciallyunvetted approach thatcombinesan external (Squirt)
exposurewithaninternal (Eveready)awareness assessment. 13Otherlikelihood of
7.Asused herein, brand “strength”refers todistinctiveness ...acquired in the marketplaceas
opposed toinherentdistinctiveness,”24Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v.24/7 Tribeca Fitness LLC, 447F.
Supp. 2d266,271(S.D.N.Y. 2006);tocommercial asopposed toconceptual strength, GoTo.com, Inc.
v.WaltDisneyCo., 202 F.3d1199, 1207 (9thCir.2000). Asused herein, brandencompassesboth
markand product(bothspeciesand genus), concepts thatconsumers typicallyconflate. See, e.g., Jerre
B. Swann, Genericism Rationalized,89TR. 639(1999). The line between commercially
strong and weak brandsisneitherbrightnorconstantand often mayitself be ascertained onlybyasurvey.
8. See the chapterin Section VbyItamarSimonson and Ran Kivetz titled Demand Effects in
Likelihood of Confusion Surveys. Also see Kargo Global, Inc. v.Advance Magazine Publishers,Inc.,
2007 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 57320 *26 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)([T]he mereputting of [a closed-ended] question
[in atwo-stimuli formatcan create] the impression of arelationship.). Itisnotunusual forrespondents,
who havegiven afrom the same company” response, toanswera“why” question with“youwouldn’t
be asking me if theywerenot.
9. See ShariS.Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research, R M  S
E 392(3ded. 2011) (“responsealternativesin aclosed-ended question mayremindrespondents
of optionsthattheywould nototherwiseconsiderorwhich simplydo notcome tomindaseasily.).
10.Kargo Global, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 57320,*24.
11. See A&HSportswear,Inc. v.Victoria’s SecretStores,Inc., 237 F.3d198, 216(3dCir.2000).
12.AlexSimonson, Surveys of Trademark Confusion: Basic Differences,5I. P. S
1, 2(Nov.1998).
13.Several casesreflectothercombinationsof Evereadyand Squirt:e.g.,inone, respondents were
shownaportfolio that(aided)contained depictionsof bothplaintiff’s and defendant’s products before
being shown(“unaided)aphotographof defendant’s productalone, BreuerElec. Mfg. Co. v.HooverCo.,
48 U.S.P.Q. 1705, 1714 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (an aided Eveready). In another,arespondentwas:(a) shownthe
juniorbrand;(b) asked who put itout; (c) asked, effectively,whatotherproducts the respondentassociated
withthe brand;and (d) if the respondentnamed plaintiff’s product,asked whethertherewasanyconnec-
tion between the two. IDV N. Am., Inc. v.S&M Brands,Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d815, 821(E.D. Va. 1998).
See Tiffany&Broadway,Inc.v.Comm’rof Patents and Trademarks,167F. Supp. 2d949,955 (S.D. Tex.
2001);Carefirst of Md., Inc. v.First Care, P.C., 434F.3d263 (4thCir.2006)(In the unaided portion of
the survey,surveyors asked respondents ...whethertheythoughtFirst Carewasrelated tooraffiliated

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT