1887
Volume 162, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.162.04gui
2011-01-01
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Butters, R.R.
    (2010) Trademarks: Language that one owns. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 351–364). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008a) A linguistic look at trademark dilution. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 24, 507–519.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008b) Trademarks and other proprietary terms. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 231–247). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aals.5.16but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.16but [Google Scholar]
  4. (2007) Changing linguistic issues in US trademark litigation. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M. & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law. (pp. 29–42). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Butters, R.R. & Westerhaus, J.
    (2004) Linguistic change in words one owns: How trademarks become “generic”. In A. Curzan & K. Emmons (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II (pp. 111–123). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110897661.111
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110897661.111 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chambers, J.K.
    (2011) Curriculum Vitae. Online document: www.chass.utoronto.ca/~chambers/ (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
  7. Coulthard, M.
    (2010) In my opinion. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 473–486). London & New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203855607.ch31
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch31 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K., & Woolls, D.
    (2010) Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 523–538). London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A.
    (Eds.) (2010) The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dinwoodie, G.B.
    (2008) What linguistics can do for trademark law. In L. Bently, Davis, J. & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 140–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511495212.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495212.007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Durant, A.
    (2008) How can I tell the trade mark on a piece of gingerbread from all the other marks on it? Naming and meaning in verbal trade mark signs. In L. Bently, Davis, J., & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 107–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511495212.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495212.006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eades, D.
    (1994) Forensic linguistics in Australia: An overview. Forensic Linguistics1, 2, 113–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbons, J., & Turell, M.T.
    (Eds.) (2008) Dimensions of forensic linguistics. AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aals.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grant, T.
    (2010) Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 508–522). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 215–229). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aals.5.15gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.15gra [Google Scholar]
  16. Guillén-Nieto, V.
    (2008) El caso Respicort v. Respicur: Un dictamen pericial lingüístico sobre el conflicto entre marcas comunitarias. Unpublished MA Thesis. Directed by Dr. M.T. Turell. Master’s in Forensic Linguistics. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hotta, S.
    (2006a) Functions of language in trademarks. Ritsumeikan Law Review (R. L. R.), 23, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2006b) A linguistic exploration of trademark dilution. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law (pp. 179–186). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hotta, S. & Fujita, M.
    (2007) The psycholinguistic foundation of trademarks: An experimental study. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and the Law. (pp. 173–178). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jessen, M.
    (2010) The forensic phonetician. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 378–394). London and New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203855607.ch25
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch25 [Google Scholar]
  21. Montes de Oca, D.R.
    (1998) Aspectos lingüísticos de la marca publicitaria. Onomazein, 3, 111–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nunberg, G.
    (2001) That’s correct. California Lawyer. July. On line document: www.csli.standord.edu/~nunberg/CLRedskins.pdf. (Last accessed 20th April 2011).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Okawara, M.H.
    (2006) Linguistic analysis of some Japanese trademark cases. PhD dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Oyanedel, M. & Samaniego, J.
    (2004) Report written for the court’s consideration in a likelihood-of-confusion case in 2005 involving rival trademarks Paltomiel and Palto con Miel, Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia, SentenciaN 24/2005, Republica de Chile, 4. Online document: mail.fne.cl/db/tabla.nsf/f34cb3b7c2bb5deb8425733e005faa18/4a2b513 4307725af0425705a0052ecfe/$FILE/Sentencia-24–2005.pdf (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rieber, R.W. & Stewart, W.A.
    (Eds.) (1990) The language scientist as expert in the legal setting. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 606. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sanderson, P.
    (2007) Linguistic analysis of competing trademarks. Language Matters, 38, 132–149. doi:  10.1080/10228190701640108
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10228190701640108 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shudo, S.
    (2005) Towards more objective criteria for decisions on similarities in trademark disputes: What linguistic analysis may contribute. Conference paper, 7th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law, International Association of Forensic Linguists, Cardiff University, July 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Shuy, R.
    (2002) Linguistic battles in trademark disputes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2002) The battles over linguistics and law. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_1 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2002) Generic v. secondary meaning: Registry Hotel v. Hospitality Management. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 46–55). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_4 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2002) Teaching a jury about meaning: Warren v. Prestone. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 56–68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_5 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Sounding alike and meaning alike: Con Agra v. Hormell.In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 69–80). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_6
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_6 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2002) Descriptiveness: Nouns and modifiers: Woodroast Systems v. Restaurants Unlimited. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 81–94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_7 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2002) The meaning of a patronymic prefix: McDonald’s v. Quality Inns. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 95–109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_8 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2002) Sounding, looking, and meaning different: AMR Pharm v. American Home Products. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 110–115). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_9 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2002) Differences in the ingredients, qualities, and characteristics of the products: Pyewacket v. Mattel. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 116–124). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_10
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_10 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2002) Going beyond competing company and product names: Auto Nation v. Car Max. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 125–143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_11
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_11 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2002) Using foreign language words in trademarks: Alixandre Furs v. Alexandros Furs. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 144–149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_12 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2002) Power, control and the ownership of language. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 190–200). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230554757_17
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554757_17 [Google Scholar]
  40. Solan, L.M.
    (2010) The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 395–407). London and New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Solan, L. M.
    (1990) Does the legal system need experts in English syntax?In R.W. Rieber & W.A. Stewart (Eds.). The language scientist as expert in the legal setting (pp. 107–118). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 606. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Turell, M.T.
    (2008) Plagiarism. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 265–299). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/aals.5.18tur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.18tur [Google Scholar]
  43. (2005) El plagio en la traducción literaria. In M.T. Turell (Ed.), Lingüística forense, lengua y derecho. Conceptos, métodos y aplicaciones (pp. 275–298). Sèrie Monografies 8. Barcelona: IULA.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (Ed.) (2005): Lingüística forense, lengua y derecho. Conceptos, métodos y aplicaciones. Sèrie Monografies 8. Barcelona: IULA.
  45. Boersma, P. & Weenik, D.
    (2011) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (v 5.2.21). Amsterdam: The Netherlands University of Amsterdam. On line document: www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (Last accessed 2nd February 2011).
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.162.04gui
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error