Journal article
How important is the name in predicting false recognition for lookalike brands?
MS Humphreys, KA McFarlane, JS Burt, SJ Kelly, KG Weatherall, RG Burrell
Psychology Public Policy and Law | AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC | Published : 2017
DOI: 10.1037/law0000133
Abstract
An underexploited role for psychology in trademark law is the testing of explicit or implicit judicial assumptions about consumer behavior. In this article we examine an assumption that is common across Commonwealth countries, namely, that similar packaging is unlikely to cause consumer confusion provided the brand names are dissimilar. We began by selecting branded products commonly found in supermarkets. For each existing brand we created 2 novel (fictitious) brands with highly similar packaging to the existing brand. One of these "lookalike" products had a similar name, the other a dissimilar name. Across 2 yes/no and 1 forced-choice experiments using photographs of the real and fictitiou..
View full abstractRelated Projects (1)
Grants
Awarded by Australian Research Council
Funding Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP120100249. Financial support for the project came from the Australian Government (via the Australian Research Council), and Australia's IP office, IP Australia. The Federal Court of Australia, Treasury Wine Estates, and Carelton & United Breweries were nonfinancial partners who were consulted during the course of the research. Portions of this article were presented at 'Testing Trade Mark Law's Image of the Consumer,' a Meeting and Workshop held at the offices of Carlton & United Breweries, Melbourne, 28 March, 2014. This was an invitation only workshop involving lawyers, and external legal and design consultants of the firm. Portions were also presented at 'Testing Trade Mark Law's Image of the Consumer' 20 October 2015. This was a closed workshop attended only by IP Australia employees at IP Australia.