品牌盗用诉讼中的证据问题

P. Gillies
{"title":"品牌盗用诉讼中的证据问题","authors":"P. Gillies","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2225622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brand appropriation litigation in Australia centres on one or more claims of trade mark infringement, breach of s18 of the Australian Consumer Law (formerly s52 of the Trade Practices Act), and commission of the tort of passing off. At the core of these actions is an allegation that the consumer was relevantly misled into buying the pirate brand rather than the legally protected one. Expert evidence, such as consumer survey evidence and that from marketing psychologists, is often but not universally tendered in cases of this type. The adducing of evidence in this category tends to prolong litigation and increase its cost. It is therefore appropriate to examine its utility. Cases to be commented upon include those centring upon the fictional Duff beer “brand”, the Cadbury brand (where Cadbury sought a monopoly on the shade of purple associated with its branding), and the Red Bull energy drink brand.","PeriodicalId":404265,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Discovery & Evidence (Topic)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidential Issues in Brand Appropriation Litigation\",\"authors\":\"P. Gillies\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2225622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Brand appropriation litigation in Australia centres on one or more claims of trade mark infringement, breach of s18 of the Australian Consumer Law (formerly s52 of the Trade Practices Act), and commission of the tort of passing off. At the core of these actions is an allegation that the consumer was relevantly misled into buying the pirate brand rather than the legally protected one. Expert evidence, such as consumer survey evidence and that from marketing psychologists, is often but not universally tendered in cases of this type. The adducing of evidence in this category tends to prolong litigation and increase its cost. It is therefore appropriate to examine its utility. Cases to be commented upon include those centring upon the fictional Duff beer “brand”, the Cadbury brand (where Cadbury sought a monopoly on the shade of purple associated with its branding), and the Red Bull energy drink brand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Discovery & Evidence (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Discovery & Evidence (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2225622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Discovery & Evidence (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2225622","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

澳大利亚的商标侵权诉讼主要集中在一项或多项商标侵权索赔、违反《澳大利亚消费者法》第18条(原《贸易行为法》第52条)以及假冒侵权行为。这些诉讼的核心是指控消费者被相关的误导而购买盗版品牌,而不是受法律保护的品牌。专家证据,如消费者调查证据和营销心理学家的证据,在这类案件中经常被引用,但不是普遍被引用。这类证据的引证往往会延长诉讼时间,增加诉讼成本。因此,审查其效用是适当的。要评论的案例包括那些围绕虚构的达夫啤酒“品牌”、吉百利品牌(吉百利试图垄断与其品牌相关的紫色)和红牛能量饮料品牌的案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidential Issues in Brand Appropriation Litigation
Brand appropriation litigation in Australia centres on one or more claims of trade mark infringement, breach of s18 of the Australian Consumer Law (formerly s52 of the Trade Practices Act), and commission of the tort of passing off. At the core of these actions is an allegation that the consumer was relevantly misled into buying the pirate brand rather than the legally protected one. Expert evidence, such as consumer survey evidence and that from marketing psychologists, is often but not universally tendered in cases of this type. The adducing of evidence in this category tends to prolong litigation and increase its cost. It is therefore appropriate to examine its utility. Cases to be commented upon include those centring upon the fictional Duff beer “brand”, the Cadbury brand (where Cadbury sought a monopoly on the shade of purple associated with its branding), and the Red Bull energy drink brand.
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