The criteria of ascertainment of the likelihood of confusion ‎in trademarks infringement based on U.S. and Iran law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Private law, University of Mazandaran, Mazandarn, Iran.‎

2 Faculty of Law ‎‏ &Political Science, University of Mazandarn, Mazandaran, Iran‎

3 Department of Private law, Faculty of Law &‏ ‏Political Science, University of Mazandaran, ‎Mazandaran, Iran‎

Abstract

Diagnosis of trademark infringements in case of similarity is not easy to do; Achieving such a diagnosis must be done with time and accurately. The criterion of infringement in this assumption is the likelihood of confusion of buyer, and the Iranian legislator in the Act of registration patents, industrial designs, and trademarks adopted in 2007 has stated that with using a fairly ambiguous term (public confusion). But the law is silent on two issues, and from this point of view, this research is felt, and We will deal with this issue in a descriptive-analytical manner, relying on the procedure of US courts, and in particular US doctrine. The question is, first of all: What should be the subject of the buyer's confusion, and how and at what time? Secondly, on what factors should the judge justify the existence of the condition of the likelihood of confusion or not? In addition, how to prove the existence of actual confusion or not and the impact of this issue on the condition of the likelihood of confusion is examined.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. English

    1. Allen, Michael J. (1994). The Role of Actual Confusion Evidence in Federal Trademark Infringement Litigation. Campbell Law Review, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, pp. 19-60. Visited on:4/18/2022, 3:58 PM.
    2. Bartow, Ann (2004). Likelihood of Confusion, SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW, Vol. 41, No 1, pp. 1-105. Visited on: 3/1/2022 8:05 PM.
    3. Bebee, Barton (2021). Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook, 8th edition, available at: https://www.tmcasebook.org
    4. Bebee, Barton (2006). An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement, CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 94, pp. 1581-1654. Visited on: 1/10/2022, 5:13 AM.
    5. Bone, Robert G. (2012). Taking The Confusion Out Of Likelihood Of Confusion: Toward A more Sensible Approach to trademark infringement. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 1307-1378.visited on: 3/24/2022, 1:27 PM.
    6. Boyel & James & Jenkins, Jennifer (2021). INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: Law&Information Society,Fifth edition. Available at: https://web.law.duke.edu
    7. Brown, Katie, Brison, Natasha, Batista, Paul (2019). An Empirical Examination of Consumer Survey Use in Trademark Litigation, Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 237-283. Visited on: 4/27/2022, 1:29 PM.
    8. Colston, Catherine, Middleton, Kirsty (2005). Modern Intellectual Property Law, Cavendish Publishing, London, Second Edition.
    9. Cornish, William (1996). Intellectual property law, Sweet & Maxwell, London, Third Edition.
    10. Dinwoodie, Graeme B., Janis, Mark D. (2007). Confusion Over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law, IOWA Law Review, Vol. 92, pp. 1597-1667. Visited on:1/3/2022, 6:45 PM.
    11. Garner, Bryan (2011). Black᾿s Law Dictionary, West, Texas, Fourth Edition.
    12. Guilin, Gao, Tianyi, Wang (2018). An Analysis of Reverse Confusion of Trademark Rights, Atlantis Press, Vol. 184, pp. 587-590.visited on: 5/6/2022, 4:01 PM.
    13. Lemley, Mark, Mckenna, Mark (2010). Irrelevant confusion, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 62: 413-454. visited on: 4/27/2022, 5:23 PM.
    14. Powell, Connie Davis (2012). We all Know it's a Knock Off - Re-Evaluating the Need for the Post-Sale Confusion Doctrine in Trademark Law, North Carolina Journal Of Law&Technology, Vol. 14, Issue.1, pp. 1-42. Visited on:5/6/2022, 5:16 PM.
    15. Robins, Mark D. (2004). Actual Confusion in Trademark Infringement Litigation: Restraining Subjectivity Through A Fctor-Based Approach to Valuing Evidence, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 1-123. Visited on: 4/18/2022, 3:43 PM.
    16. Rothman, Jennifer (2005). Initial Interest Confusion: Standing at the Crossroads of Trademark Law, CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, Vol. 27:1, pp. 105-191. Visited on: 5/10/2022, 9:40 PM.
    17. Scott, Paul G (2001). A Tale of Confusion: How Tribunals Treat The Presence and Absence of Evidence of Actual Confusion in Trademark Matters, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 32, No 1, pp. 75-102. Visited on: 4/26/2022, 3:07 PM.
    18. Sprigman, Christopher, Raustiala, Kal (2018). Rethinking Post-Sale Confusion, The law journal of the international trademark association, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 881-903. Visited on: 11/18/2022, 4:21 PM.
    19. Stolte, Keith M.(1997). Remedying Judicial Limitations on Trademark Remedies: Monetary Relief Should Not Require Proof of Actual Confusion, Denver Law Review, Vol.75, Issue 1, pp. 229-252. Visited on: 4/28/2022, 1:53 AM.
    20. Tushnet, Rebecca(2015). Whatʹs the Harm of Trademark Infringement, Akron Law Review, Vol. 49, Issue.3, pp. 627-646. Visited on: 3/24/2022, 1:16 PM.
    21. Zixin, Shan(2018). Confusion Or Likelihood Of Confusion?(Trademark Infringement In China and EU), Master’s Thesis 30 ECTS, UPPSALA University, Available at: http://uu.diva-portal.org. visited on:5/29/2021, 9:51 PM.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 1
Spring & Summer 2023
July 2023
Pages 335-368

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics