Multi-faceted assessment of trademark similarity

Abstract

Highlights A novel method for the assessment of trademark similarity is proposed. The method blends together visual, semantic and phonetic similarity. It produces an aggregated score based on the individual assessments. Evaluation using information retrieval measures and human judgment.ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT One of the most influential factors in this test is establishing similarity in appearance, meaning or sound. However, even though the trademark registration process suggests a multi-faceted similarity assessment, relevant research in expert systems mainly focuses on computing individual aspects of similarity between trademarks. Therefore, this paper contributes to the knowledge in this field by proposing a method, which, similar to the way people perceive trademarks, blends together the three fundamental aspects of trademark similarity and produces an aggregated score based on the individual visual, semantic and phonetic assessments. In particular, semantic similarity is a new aspect, which has not been considered by other researchers in approaches aimed at providing decision support in trademark similarity assessment. Another specific scientific contribution of this paper is the innovative integration, using a fuzzy engine, of three independent assessments, which collectively provide a more balanced and human-centered view on potential infringement problems. In addition, the paper introduces the concept of degree of similarity since the line between similar and dissimilar trademarks is not always easy to define especially when dealing with blending three very different assessments. The work described in the paper is evaluated using a database comprising 1,400 trademarks compiled from a collection of real legal cases of trademark disputes. The evaluation involved two experiments. The first ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T experiment employed information retrieval measures to test the classification accuracy of the proposed method while the second used human collective opinion to examine correlations between the trademark scoring/rating and the ranking of the proposed method, and human judgment. In the first experiment, the proposed method improved the F-score, precision and accuracy of classification by 12.5%, 35% and 8.3%, respectively, against the best score computed using individual similarity. In the second experiment, the proposed method produced a perfect positive Spearman rank correlation score of 1.00 in the ranking task and a pairwise Pearson correlation score of 0.92 in the rating task. The test of significance conducted on both scores rejected the null hypotheses of the experiment and showed that both scores correlated well with collective human judgment. The combined overall assessment could add value to existing support systems and be beneficial for both trademark examiners and trademark applicants. The method could be further used in addressing recent cyberspace phenomena related to trademark infringement such as customer hijacking and cybersquatting.

Taking advantage of motif matrix inference for rotated image indexing and retrieval

“…In this section, we implement our approach of MMI for image retrieval on Corel image dataset [38][39][40], Brodatz texture image dataset [20,41,42], and WIPO global brand dataset [43,44], which are three most widely adopted benchmark datasets in the literatures of CBIR and trademark search. In our experiments, Corel image database composed of 1000 images, named Corel-1000, is adopted to testify the effectiveness of our approach.…”

Hybrid-Margin Softmax for the Detection of Trademark Image Similarity

“…More specifically, for the TMISD task, Setchi proposed a TM similarity analysis system to conduct the 'likelihood of confusion' test with three models [20]. Global and local shape feature descriptors, i.e., Zernike moment and an edge gradient co-occurrence matrix are used to extract TM image features.…”

Stability of Dependencies of Contingent Subgroups with Merged Groups: Vaccination Case Study

“…This approach is known by different names, e.g., null hypothesis testing or null hypothesis significance testing. This method is a modification of Fisher's (1928) significance testing [1], and Neyman and Pearson's (1933) hypothesis testing [2][3][4][5]. There are many problems that surround the application of the null hypothesis testing method, especially if we consider the test result or the parameters of the regression model as an indication of a causal relationship.…”