引言:混淆的可能性

I. Fhima, D. Gangjee
{"title":"引言:混淆的可能性","authors":"I. Fhima, D. Gangjee","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199674336.003.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Confusion is the lynchpin of trade mark law. As a cause of action, it has something to offer everyone: trade mark owners are protected from those trying to reap the benefits of their investment in their mark and brand, the public interest is served because consumers are protected from making mistaken purchasing decisions, and consequently, a differentiated market for goods and services can operate. The prevention of confusion also has intuitive appeal. We have all been confused; policymakers, judges, academics, practitioners, and members of the public alike. Indeed, we have probably all made erroneous decisions in the marketplace. Yet, despite (or perhaps because of) the ease with which likely confusion provides the traditional rationale for trade mark protection, it is under-analysed and under-studied. In particular, it is our belief that the very intuitiveness of confusion has resulted in little systematic analysis considering the exact ingredients that make up a claim of confusion.","PeriodicalId":278652,"journal":{"name":"The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: The Likelihood of Confusion\",\"authors\":\"I. Fhima, D. Gangjee\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780199674336.003.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Confusion is the lynchpin of trade mark law. As a cause of action, it has something to offer everyone: trade mark owners are protected from those trying to reap the benefits of their investment in their mark and brand, the public interest is served because consumers are protected from making mistaken purchasing decisions, and consequently, a differentiated market for goods and services can operate. The prevention of confusion also has intuitive appeal. We have all been confused; policymakers, judges, academics, practitioners, and members of the public alike. Indeed, we have probably all made erroneous decisions in the marketplace. Yet, despite (or perhaps because of) the ease with which likely confusion provides the traditional rationale for trade mark protection, it is under-analysed and under-studied. In particular, it is our belief that the very intuitiveness of confusion has resulted in little systematic analysis considering the exact ingredients that make up a claim of confusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":278652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199674336.003.0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199674336.003.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

混淆是商标法的核心问题。作为诉讼的原因,它可以为每个人提供一些东西:商标所有者免受那些试图从他们对商标和品牌的投资中获利的人的侵害,公共利益得到了保障,因为消费者不会做出错误的购买决定,因此,一个差异化的商品和服务市场可以运作。防止混淆也有直观的吸引力。我们都曾困惑过;政策制定者、法官、学者、从业者和公众都一样。事实上,我们在市场上可能都做过错误的决定。然而,尽管(或者可能是因为)可能的混淆很容易为商标保护提供传统的理由,但它没有得到充分的分析和研究。特别是,我们相信,对混乱的直觉性导致很少有系统的分析,考虑到构成混乱主张的确切成分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introduction: The Likelihood of Confusion
Confusion is the lynchpin of trade mark law. As a cause of action, it has something to offer everyone: trade mark owners are protected from those trying to reap the benefits of their investment in their mark and brand, the public interest is served because consumers are protected from making mistaken purchasing decisions, and consequently, a differentiated market for goods and services can operate. The prevention of confusion also has intuitive appeal. We have all been confused; policymakers, judges, academics, practitioners, and members of the public alike. Indeed, we have probably all made erroneous decisions in the marketplace. Yet, despite (or perhaps because of) the ease with which likely confusion provides the traditional rationale for trade mark protection, it is under-analysed and under-studied. In particular, it is our belief that the very intuitiveness of confusion has resulted in little systematic analysis considering the exact ingredients that make up a claim of confusion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信