The Universe

• Author: William G. Barber
• Pages: 27-49

27

3

The Universe

By William G. Barber

Courts consider the selection of the proper universe as one of

the most important factors in assessing the validity of asurvey

as well as the weight that it should receive.1

Defining the properuniverseisacritical step in designing anysurvey 2—

including surveys used in Lanham Actcases.Asurvey’s “universe”

(alsoreferred toas“population”)isthe groupofpeople from which

participants in the surveyareselected, and thus isthe groupofpeople

whoseperceptionsthe surveyisintended torepresent.When designing

asurveyforaLanham Actcase, itiscrucial toselectauniversethat

correspondswiththe grouporgroupsof consumers whosestate-of-

mind isrelevanttothe particularlegal issueinvolved in the case. As

discussed in thischapter,the relevantuniverseforasurveyin aLanham

Actcasevariesdepending on whatlegal issueisbeing tested.

Failuretoproperlydefine the universecan havedevastating

consequenceson the evidentiary weightgiven toasurvey,and can even

lead toits exclusion from evidence in extreme cases. 3Errors in defining

1. LeelanauWine Cellars,Ltd. v.Black&Red,Inc., 452F. Supp. 2d772,781 (W.D.

Mich. 2006)aff’d,502 F.3d504(6thCir.2007).

2.M CL §11.493(Fed. Jud. Ctr., 4thed. 2004);S.

Diamond, Reference Guide on Survey Research, in R M  S

E 376 n.76 (Fed. Jud. Ctr., 3ded. 2011) (hereinafterDiamond) (“Identification of

the propertargetpopulation oruniverseisrecognized uniformlyasakeyelementin the

developmentof asurvey.”);Smithv.Wal-Mart Stores,Inc., 537 F. Supp. 2d1302,1323

(N.D. Ga. 2008) (“Selection of the properuniverseisone of the most importantfactors in

assessing the validity of asurveyand the weightthatitshouldreceivebecausethe‘persons

interviewed must adequatelyrepresentthe opinionswhich arerelevanttothe litigation.’

Selection of aproperuniverseissocritical that‘even if the properquestionsareasked in

apropermanner,ifthe wrong personsareasked,the results arelikelytobeirrelevant.’”).

3.Diamond at377–78(“Asurveythatprovidesinformation about awholly

irrelevantpopulation isitself irrelevant.Courts arelikelytoexcludethe surveyoraccord

itlittle weight.”).

Section II

28

the universecan be grouped intothree general categories.4First,the universemaybe

overinclusive, including notonlythe groupofconsumers relevanttothe legal issue

being tested, but alsootherindividuals.The weightthatacourt islikelytogivesuch

asurveymaydepend on whethersufficientdataisobtained in the surveytoidentify

thoserespondents in the relevantsubgroup, and whetherthe numberof respondents

soidentified islarge enough tobestatisticallymeaningful.

Second, the universemaybe underinclusive, including onlyasubsetof the

entiregroupofconsumers relevanttothe legal issuebeing tested. The weightgiven

thistype of surveymaydepend heavilyon whetherthe court believesthe particular

segmenttested biased the results in favorof the party who commissioned the survey.

If so, the court islikelytoaccordthe surveylittle orno weight.Onthe otherhand, if

thereisno showing orreason tobelievethatunrepresented segments of consumers

would havereacted differentlythan thoseincluded in the survey,the court maygive

the surveysome weight.Further,ifthe subsettested constitutesarelevantand distinct

segmentof the overall marketforthe applicable products orservices,the court may

deem the universeproper,albeitlimiting the survey’s relevance oreffecttothat

particularsegment.

Finally,the universemaycompletelymiss the mark, consisting of individuals

whosestate-of-mind isnotrelevanttothe legal issuebeing tested. Forobvious

reasons,thesetypesof surveys arelikelytobeexcluded from evidence orgiven no

weightbythe court.

DETERMINING THE PROPER UNIVERSE

Anumberof legal issuesinvolved in Lanham Actlitigation lend themselvestosurvey

evidence, becausetheydepend upon the perception orstate-of-mind of consumers

of the parties’ products orservices.The properuniverseforthesesurveys depends

directlyon which issueisin dispute, and whatgroupofconsumers isrelevanttothat

issue. Thus,itisvital forthe surveyexpert tounderstand the legal issueheorshe has

been asked totest,and tailorthe universeascloselyaspossible tothe relevantgroup

of consumers.

Forward Confusion

The classic articulation of the properuniversefordetermining likelihood of confusion

in traditional trademarkinfringementcases(i.e., casesalleging “forwardconfusion”5)

4. Some surveyuniversesmayinvolveacombinationof theseproblems.Forexample, auniversecould

be overinclusiveinsome respects and underinclusiveinothers.

5. “Forwardconfusion”(alsocalled “traditional confusion”)isused heretorefertocaseswherethe

senioruserasserts thatconsumers arelikelytobeconfused thatthe junioruser’s products orservicesare

made orsponsored bythesenioruser.Incontrast,“reverseconfusion”refers tocaseswherethe senioruser

asserts thatconsumers arelikelytobemisled intobelieving thatthesenioruser’sproducts orservicesare

made orsponsored bythe junioruser.