Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!
| Subsequent Confusion |
|
Although packaging may prevent confusion at an original point of sale, the product shape or feature may still be protected
if there is a potential for confusion in a secondary or post-sale environment. This issue has been raised
successfully in several sports car cases where the original manufacturer asserts that a competitor's inferior copy of
their car design is detrimental to the original manufacturer's reputation. One court case includes a Lanham Act claim
regarding the similarities of the Viper® and the Mongoose sports cars, while another court case was filed to protect the Ferrari Testarossa® from imitators.
In Infringement-Downstream Confusion Tim Snider for the National Legal Research Group discusses subsequent confusion. Our problem with subsequent confusion is that almost anything could be applied to it. While some of the court's reasoning makes sense, this doctrine can be used to eliminate competition. |
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
|
Definitions |
|
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Circuit | by Subject |
|
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 |