The Psychological Foundations of Trademark Law: Secondary Meaning, Acquired Distinctiveness, Genericism, Fame, Confusion and Dilution

Jacoby, Jacob

doi:10.2139/ssrn.229325

Cited by 10 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morrin and Jacoby's (2000) conceptualization is broader; it considers the weakening of associations between the brand and any of its aspects or associations, not just its category. Finally, legal scholars and public policy researchers suggest that dilution by blurring involves the formation of a shared brand knowledge network, in which knowledge about the senior and junior brands may compete for activation when a consumer thinks about the senior brand (Jacoby 2001;McCarthy 2004). Jacoby (2001Jacoby ( , p. 1048 notes that the harm of dilution could take several forms:…”

Section: Dilution As a Change In Brand Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although both have been advocated as useful in the assessment of dilution 54 / Journal of Marketing, April 2006 (Morrin and Jacoby 2000;Peterson, Smith, and Zerrillo 1999;Simonson 1993), the response latency measure has been singled out as particularly relevant. Reduction in the speed at which people are able to access, recognize, and verify brand associations is what Jacoby (2001Jacoby ( , p. 1049 refers to as "the essence of a weakening of associations" for dilution. In contrast, our third measure addresses the consequences of reduced brand name or aspect accessibility, namely, reduced probability of consideration and brand choice.…”

Section: The Conceptualization and Measurement Of Dilutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This automatic interpretation may be corrected through the consideration of less accessible associations or externally available information, such as the knowledge that the brands are unrelated. However, such correction requires cognitive effort, and as a result, undercorrection is common (Jacoby 2001;Johar and Simmons 2000). Thus, the accessibility of senior-brand associations is influenced by junior-brand associations, even when there is no confusion, and dilution or reinforcement is the consequence.…”

Section: How Do These Effects Occur In the Absence Of Confusion?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?

Pullig

Simmons

Netemeyer

2006

Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential for trademark dilution occurs when a new brand introduces itself with an identical or substantially similar mark to that of an existing brand. Currently, there is neither a clear standard for legal proof of dilution nor widely accepted measures for managerial use. Using a shared-brand-network model, the authors use three different but conceptually related measurement methodologies (response latency, aided recall, and simulated choice) across five experiments to examine "blurring" dilution effects. The results suggest that when junior brands operate in similar categories and position on similar attributes, there is no immediate threat of blurring dilution. However, if the junior brand chooses to position on dissimilar attributes in a similar category, dilution of attribute associations is likely. When the junior brand operates in dissimilar categories, there is a threat of blurring dilution for both category and attribute associations. The final two studies demonstrate that dilution of junior brands (i.e., operating in dissimilar categories positioned on dissimilar attributes) can suppress consideration and choice probabilities for the senior brand and that this effect may extend over a period of time.

show abstract

Section: Dilution As a Change In Brand Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Conceptualization and Measurement Of Dilutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Do These Effects Occur In the Absence Of Confusion?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?

Pullig

Simmons

Netemeyer

2006

Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the ANM, when the perceived similarity between a JB and a famous brand increases, there are more interconnected nodes (nodes relating to all similar aspects) in the brand network (Jacoby, 2001), so the likelihood of retrieving original brand associations when the brand is triggered may not be reduced (Humphreys et al, 2000;Pullig et al, 2006). This means that lower dilution is expected, the less dissimilar that the JB and the famous brand are.…”

Section: Similarity Trademark Dilution and The Subtyping Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a junior brand causes a weakening of famous brand associations, it is called dilution by blurring (Simonson, 1993;Peterson, Smith and Zerrillo, 1999). On the other hand, dilution by tarnishment is caused when a junior brand adds negative associations to a famous brand mental network, or modifies the positive ones, negatively affecting the brand evaluation (Simonson, 1993), attitudes and desired behavior of consumers (Jacoby, 2001). and, consequently, brand value, that is, that economic damage would have motivated the anti-dilution law.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trademark dilution: comparing the effects of blurring and tarnishment cases over brand equity

Macias

Fernández

2017

Management &Amp; Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Enhanced Distinctiveness and Why “Strong Marks” Are Causing Us All Confusion

Johnson

2023

IIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A “strong” trade mark, one which has a high level of distinctiveness, is entitled to a greater level of protection in the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States than other weaker marks. The psychological and marketing evidence suggests that, in fact, stronger marks are less likely to be confused by consumers. Accordingly, courts and tribunals are required to find confusion in cases involving strong marks even where the facts do not support it. The antecedence for this legal fiction (normative correction or public policy choice) is confused, it makes the law conceptually uncertain and now that marks with a sufficient reputation are entitled to protection from dilution, the fiction has become unsupportable from a normative perspective. Indeed, it appears that a neutral approach – that is not taking into account that it is a “stronger” mark during any confusion analysis – does little, if any, harm to the proprietors of strong marks and clearly benefits competitors. It is argued therefore that the rule giving more protection to strong marks (whether it is inherent or acquired strength) should be abolished.

show abstract

The Psychological Foundations of Trademark Law: Secondary Meaning, Acquired Distinctiveness, Genericism, Fame, Confusion and Dilution

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?

Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?

Trademark dilution: comparing the effects of blurring and tarnishment cases over brand equity

Enhanced Distinctiveness and Why “Strong Marks” Are Causing Us All Confusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About