Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
In the more traditional cases of trademark infringement, the infringer counterfeits the mark or uses it in some way that causes confusion as to the
source of the product. In most reverse confusion cases, a junior (or new) user adopts a mark already in use by the senior user. Then the junior user
becomes more recognized for the trademark than the senior user through advertising and other expenditures used to promote the mark. The
original trademark owner then wants the junior user to stop using the mark even though the junior user is now more readily identified with the mark.
As with many legal issues, the various federal districts are not in agreement concerning reverse confusion. In 1974 the Tenth Circuit was the first to officially recognize it in Big O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 561 F.2d 1365 (10th Cir. 1977). Since then, most circuits have recognized the Reverse Confusion Doctrine being in differing degrees.
The 2003 article titled Reverse Confusion In Trade,arks; Balancing The Interests Of The Public, The Trademark Owner, And The Infringer by Joel R. Feldman for the Journal of Technology Law is a lengthy but in depth look at reverse confusion,
In The Other Trademark Infringement, the Intellectual Property Law Blog discusses the relevance of the Ninth Circuit's narrowing of the application of reverse confusion. From October 12, 2006 by Sheppard Mullin.
In A&H Sportswear v Victoria's Secret, the two fought over the word "Miracle" and Victoria's Secret lost on reverse confusion grounds.
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Initial Interest Confusion |
Likelihood Of Confusion |
Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports | Post-sale Confusion | Puffery | Secondary Meaning | Subsequent Confusion | Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use | Unfair Competition | What is a Trademark?
Angel Policies |
Contributory Infringement |
Copyright Extortion |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine
; Derivative | The Digital Millennium Copyright Act | EULA | Fair Use | First Sale Doctrine | Product Description | Registration
Registration Denied | What is a Copyright? | What is not Copyrightable?
Embroidery Designs |
FAQs & Whines |
Image and Text Theft |
Licensed Fabric |
Licensing & Licenses |
Patterns Index | Profit | Quilting | Selvage | Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer | Trademark Extortion | Urban Myths | What To Do If You Are Veroed
Federal Court Cases |
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations
Federal Statutes |
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)|
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed
|Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2017|