scholarly journals The Forensic Analysis of Likelihood of Confusion among Brand Names: Case of Adidas and Abidas

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 129
Author(s):  
Patrick Sadi Makangila ◽  
Yesdauletova Sabira
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Forensic Analysis ◽  
The Body ◽  
Brand Names ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Research Questions

This paper demonstrates how an expert in Forensic Linguistics, using his skills and abilities to come up with a legal decision-making based on scientific evidence in cases involving brand names under dispute. The very important aspect in the likelihood of confusion between two brand names is when two products have names which could make consumers a bit confused while the composition of both products has one or two different ingredients which could have some allergic reactions in the body of some consumers referring to sectors like the food industry, pharmaceutical sector and so on. The study states that the conflict on the trademarks Adidas and Abidas could be avoided if the linguists are called upon as experts while the junior brand looks for name about his new brand or in the courts for the legal decision-making between brands. For these reasons, the discussion tries to provide answers to the following research questions: (a) Can a forensic linguist provide relevant evidence in the conflicts between brand names? (b) What are aspects to take into consideration? (c) Is it possible to determine the likelihood of confusion between Adidas and Abidas? To answer these research questions, an authentic case was thoroughly examined. This involved revisiting the Community Trademark conflict between the earlier and international brand Adidas and Abidas. For purposes of analysis, the likelihood of confusion was taken into consideration in the review of the Adidas vs Abidas case.

The Linguist as Expert Witness in The Community Trademark Courts

2011 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. 63-83
Author(s):  
Victoria Guillén-Nieto
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
German Nation ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Way

Abstract This paper explores the way the linguist as expert witness may smooth the progress of legal decision-making in cases involving a Community trademark (CTM) dispute. The study hypothesizes that the seesaw of court decisions found in CTM disputes could be avoided, if linguists were called upon as experts by the courts. Therefore, the discussion attempts to provide an answer to the following research questions: (a) Can forensic linguists provide relevant evidence in CTM litigation? (b) If so, what is the nature of this evidence? And (c) is it possible to determine and measure the strength of mark and the likelihood of confusion between two marks in dispute? In order to answer these research questions, an authentic case was thoroughly examined. This involved revisiting the CTM litigation between the earlier German nation-al trademark Respicort (Mundipharma AG) and the international trademark Respicur (Altana Pharma AG). The record showed no indication that a linguist had participated in this case during the eight years the legal dispute lasted. For purposes of analysis, the parameters most commonly accepted by Community trademark courts were employed in the forensic linguistic review of the Respicort v. Respicur case, namely strength of mark and likelihood of confusion.

scholarly journals The Clean Air Priority Programme – Evaluation and Perspectives

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-192
Author(s):  
Anna Sakson-Boulet
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Heating Systems ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Clean Air ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Government ◽  
High Energy Consumption ◽  
Effective Distribution

The article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Air Priority Programme and to establish possible threats to its success. The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management’s programme constitutes an important element of the government programme that goes by the same name. This study, with the aid of an institutional-legal, decision-making and quantitative analysis will undertake to answer the following research questions: (1) can the realisation of the aim formulated in this programme result in an improvement of air quality in Poland?; (2) what, if any, barriers stand in the way of achieving the programme’s aims?; (3) does the Clean Air Programme require further changes? On account of the high energy consumption of Polish homes, which typically results in their owners heating them with the cheapest fuels, emitting significant amounts of pollution, should the programme aims be assessed positively? In the process of discussions however, three types of barriers have come to light: (1) those related to the effective distribution of funds, (2) difficulties arising from programme frameworks that potential beneficiaries might encounter, and (3) potential limitations in the access to EU funding. On account of threats to the success of the programme that have been identified, it is expected that further changes to its functioning will be introduced as well as the ring-fencing of funds for thermo-modernisation and change of heating systems.

Psychology and the New Private Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 124-142
Author(s):  
Tess Wilkinson-Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Psychological Analysis ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Normative Models

This chapter presents a framework for understanding the most promising contributions of psychological methods and insights for private law. It focuses on two related domains of psychological research: cognitive and social psychology. Cognitive psychology is the study of mental processes, which one might shorthand as “thinking.” Social psychology asks about the role of other people—actual, implied, or imagined—on mental states and human behavior. The chapter is oriented around five core psychological insights: calculation, motivation, emotion, social influence, and moral values. Legal scholarship by turns tries to explain legal decision-making, tries to calibrate incentives, and tries to justify its values and its means. Psychology speaks to these descriptive, prescriptive, and normative models of decision-making. The chapter then argues that psychological analysis of legal decision-making challenges the work that the idea of choice and preference is doing in private law, especially in the wake of the law and economics movement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document