Goldman, Eric --- "Online word of mouth and its implications for trademark law" [2008] ELECD 176; in Dinwoodie, B. Graeme; Janis, D. Mark (eds), "Trademark Law and Theory" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008)

Book Title: Trademark Law and Theory

Editor(s): Dinwoodie, B. Graeme; Janis, D. Mark

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781845426026

Section: Chapter 15

Section Title: Online word of mouth and its implications for trademark law

Author(s): Goldman, Eric

Number of pages: 27

Extract:

14 Tolerating confusion about confusion:
trademark policies and fair use
Graeme W. Austin*



I. Introduction
A straightforward explanation of trademark law might go something like this:
trademark law prohibits unauthorized uses of trademarks to protect against the
likelihood1 that "ordinarily prudent" consumers will be confused about the
source of products and services by misleading uses of others' trademarks.2
Consequently, trademark law protects firms against the misappropriation of
the goodwill that their trademarks represent.3 Protection of trademarks encour-


* J. Byron McCormick Professor of Law, James E. Rogers College of Law,
University of Arizona. © Graeme Austin 2006. Thanks to Graeme Dinwoodie, Mark
Janis, Bryan Patchett, Susy Frankel, Ellen Bublick, Robert Burrell and Paul Myburgh
for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. A version of this chap-
ter also appears as an essay in 50 ARIZONA L. REV. (2008).
1 See, e.g., Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867,
875 (2d Cir. 1986) (actual confusion need not be shown).
2 As Professor Robert Bone explains, moral arguments provide another set of
explanations for protecting trademark rights, including prohibiting "lying or intentional
deception" and "unjust enrichment," and protecting "consumer autonomy." Robert G.
Bone, Enforcement Costs and Trademark Puzzles, 90 VA. L. REV 2099, 2105­08 (2004)
[hereinafter Bone, Enforcement Costs] (discussing the "standard policy arguments"
supporting protecting trademark rights). Whereas moral concerns once featured more
prominently in Anglo-American trademark and unfair competition doctrine (see, e.g.,
Thomson v Winchester, ...