Find an Expert Witness

Forensic, General & Medical
Expert Witnesses

Forward and Reverse Likelihood of Confusion - What's The Difference?


Expert Witness: Harper Litigation Consulting and Research
The courts recognize two types of confusion in trademark or trade dress cases: Forward Confusion and Reverse Confusion.

Likelihood of confusion exists when a trademark or trade dress causes relevant consumers to be confused as to the source or affiliation of that product or service. Confusion can take place before the sale, at the point-of-sale, or after the sale.

The courts recognize two types of confusion in trademark or trade dress cases:

Forward confusion occurs when consumers mistakenly believe that the junior user’s product or service is from the senior user or affiliated with the senior user’s products or services.

Reverse confusion occurs when consumers mistakenly believe that the senior user’s product or service is from the junior user. In other words, they mistakenly believe the junior user is the rightful owner of the mark. This occurs when a large, powerful junior user leverages its superior resources to quickly saturate the market of a small but
FIND MORE ARTICLES
established senior user with a similar mark on similar products or services. The danger with reverse confusion is not that consumers will believe that the junior user’s products originate with the senior user, but that consumers will mistakenly believe that the smaller senior user’s products were sponsored or approved by the stronger junior user. Because consumers have been bombarded by the junior user’s products and advertising, they may even view the senior user as having infringed the junior user’s mark. In either case, reverse confusion has the potential to harm the value of the senior user’s trademark, dilute its product identity and prevent it from controlling its reputation and goodwill with the public.

A likelihood of confusion survey assesses whether a “reasonably prudent” consumer would be confused by the use of similar marks on competing products. If a substantial number of respondents believe that the two marks are related or affiliated in some way, then there is strong evidence of potential confusion.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Harper Litigation Consulting and Research
Retained by 100+ law firms since 2005, Ms. Harper is courtroom proven. She has been engaged to provide 65+ surveys, 80+ reports, 30+ rebuttals, 45+ depositions, and serve in 20+ trials. She has provided services to both Plaintiffs (60%) and Defendants (40%) across trademark and trade dress, packaging, merchandising, defamation, licensing, breach of contract, advertising, and commercial reasonableness. She has provided services in virtually every Circuit as well as JAMS and TTAB.

Ms. Harper's 30+ year career includes serving as a Fortune 100 Chief Marketing Officer. Having authored two books, she is a former Adjunct MBA Marketing Professor.

Copyright Harper Litigation Consulting and Research

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer.For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.

Find an Expert Witness