so we are back with the second video of the trademark enforcement um class class three and in this specific video we are going to talk about the likelihood of other type of confusion um not just the the lack of data confusion between competing products um we are going to look at confusion after the sponsorship um you know that today it's much more common to sponsor product and so um if somebody uses um the same or similar Mark in those circumstances they can also be confusion and then we're going to look at confusion away from the point of sale and I'm going to explain what initial interest confusion is positive confusion and reverse confusions are now all these type of confusion in today's definition of the landman ACT are encompassed in the notion of lack of Confusion And so they all can represent infringement so here you see the difference between time and so the confusion at the point of sale at the time of say now we can also have confusion before imagine this happened mostly on the internet but could also be outside the internet I might walk into a store thinking I'm going to a number in Campbell country store and then I'm inside well that's mango that's not Abercrombie um just because they swap the store in the mall having gone to the mall for a while and then I see that I'm in the wrong place but I still buy hey that's nice new offer and I buy something uh initial interest confusion like keyword advertisement was also coming up a lot with the beginning of the online searches I click on the wrong link because I'm thinking I want a pair of nine key I did that there is there is the advertisement they pop up I see that and for some reason I click by mistake and I'm brought into the Adidas website so once I'm there says oh no this is not Nike then some special offer catches my attention and then I buy I'm not confused but I was brought into the actual web store by mistake so I was confused initially and now I'm no longer confused but Nike is not happy about it and then positive confusion there is the Ferrari there because there's been cases about um movies attaching a Ferrari Kit to a Toyota or a simpler car so people while I was driving around might think is a Ferrari what is not counterfeited products you know people buy a fake Rolex they might buy a fake Cartier or go around with a fake Louis Vuitton because they want to confuse others into thinking that they can afford the actual product when what they have is not and so all these type of confusion can lead to an action of infringement and so here you see after 1962 the landman Act was changed to include these additional type of confusion that are away from the point of sales uh and so now we have using Commerce annual production counterfeit copy of colorable limitation of a register Mark in connection with the sale offering per se distribution or advertising on any good or services or on over in connection with which such shoes is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive and so all these circumstances can lead to finding the person who does that liable in a civil action by the registrant for the remedies against trademark influential and so again you remember we have seen the Polaroid case and the ninth circuit case which is the AMF which is three craft in this specific case again the products where two boats one was a race boat one was a family boat we print one was not found but when we look at the traditional uh lacker of confusion you can see all these various factors now with respects to confusion after the sponsorship it's very much that Bridging the Gap factor that becomes really really important you might also know that the Olympic ring that you can see in these slides is protected by a special convention the Nairobi convention specifically protecting and organizing and regulating the use of the Olympic Lotto which of course the logo is also um protected via an um licensed via the um the Olympic Committee um in into itself so now what are promotional Goods we are going to see trademark transactions you know in uh towards the end of our class in class five um specifically assignment and Licensing licensing is the renting of the trademark to somebody else now somebody else can I'm I'm Frigidaire I need fridge and I license my mark to somebody else to continue my fridges but I can also license my Mark I Am A M I license my mark to people who make marks people who make t-shirts people who make twist uh sweatshirt and so this is what we call trademark merchandising that are fixing the trademarks On promotional or collateral Goods now this is a very very very important practice in terms of getting revenues for the famous trademark think about the Aggies football team think about um the professional football team think about um of course just even now um you know the championship the college championship the professional Championship uh basketball championship and so on so all these promotional Goods the question is should you and I put together t-shirts and put the logo or should we pay a fee and have the consent of the companies in um UCLA and etc etc traditional merchandising was created with a famous case which is called Boston hockey in which Boston arcued the team sued people making t-shirt and for the first time the court said that that was infringement and when we have the confusion as to the sponsorship introduced into the landman ACT infringement Provisions that also crystallize at confusion not just identical similar products but all products particularly for famous trademark and so here you can see a variety of example of merchandising products [Music] um and then these initial interest confusion we have seen how we have um so this is their confusion to away from the point or say here again these are not identical Mark but they are so similar that people can get attracted into the place and make a mistake at the beginning or the person who knows the difference between Louis Vuitton and the other brand will not buy it but the person who buy the other brand might think that she already might want to confuse other people in the course of just everyday's life going to the store going to work and so on and and and finally post sale confusion positive confusion as I mentioned before again is I buy something which is identical or very similar to an established Mark so then you think is real I know it's not you know you don't know you see me wearing or driving or using a pen which is a fake Montblanc well you think that there's real so you are confused after the sale took place and then reverse confusion this is the example of March Madness it's March Madness as I mentioned was an introductory class who started by a small School in Illinois but then the Mark was also used at the more Federal level and so this is when we see the small school still using it we think oh they copied but in reality it's not true so that's reverse confusion um here you see two similar guitars even though one was much very very expensive the other one was not um still confusion for spa I mentioned earlier the resting with the Ferrari kids um there was actually a case um uh for the Miami Vice show you probably I don't know if you ever saw the Miami Vice show the old shows back in the 80s and so in one of the episodes the um you know the Don Johnson car was the policeman that had was always acting as a traffickers the car had to be blew up back then the special effect didn't exist to the to the extent exists today and so what the movie makers did they come who played a old cars with a Ferrari Kit to blow it up they didn't want to blow up your Ferrari and then Ferrari super confusion but the court didn't find confusion and finally contributory infringement so we have seen so far all causes of infringement based on confusion confusion and confusion as to the sponsorship for sale initial interest confusion reverse confusion and so on contributory infringement that was also brought up to the attention um mostly when the internet started online trades started but it was you know the court we're going to see in a minute discuss contributory infringement before but contributor infringement is the action of an intermediator I produce products consumer buy my products or similar products by somebody that non-authorizingly uses the mark but he or she is not selling them directly to the consumer is selling them for an intermediary so online marketplaces for example or flea market so I am the intermediary I have a prophet over the state that happened in my platform on my premises and I should know or I have a duty to control what happened on my platform on my premises otherwise if I don't I can also be held in fringing and this is really particularly small in Printers or people selling fake products they tend to sell them in these premises um but it's very they're very difficult to catch particularly online you know on the intermediate all the small Amazon people that might sell fake products is much easier for planning tips to go after the deeper pocket and establish business that actually do the trading they are the platform and so the element of contributor infringement are intentionally using to imprint knowing that there isn't an infringement going on and continue to supply the imprinting product and so the idea is how much control we need is constructive now and how much knowledge is constructive knowledge is actual knowledge and you know it's actual control it's or it's the court have also discussed willful blindness for example it's difficult to prove but particularly with respect to Big platform it's becoming more and more important and so I mentioned earlier that these the city contributor imprintment in trademark law was discussed by the Supreme Court you know several decades ago on a case of pharmaceuticals and colors and inward it's a case that was brick and mortar words word if anybody it's particularly interested in this topic please reach out that I can give you specific materials because I have done a lot of extensive research and I have written and I have additional sources that I can give you this is a relevant particularly if you're working on online platform intermediaries also at a small level to know the potential you know what products are you selling what component are you using are you sure they're not infringing if you are creating a multi-part component product uh you know you need to make sure the part that you're using are not infringing um of course if you have taken the IP survey you also know patent infringing design infringing copyright and printing but of course trademark infringe and the uh Tiffany versus eBay case is probably the leading case about a contributory and infringement and in this case eBay um was not found guilty um also because um you know what Tiffany wanted were probably an excessive amount of control on the part of eBay but certainly today all platforms are very careful they ask you before you can post that this is this is not you so they are really trying to retransfer the the liability on the uploader or the seller and at the same time they put together artificial intelligence and other technology way to control that what you do uh what you're selling is not fake and if they do they flag now of course when you have a platform like um Amazon is very difficult to plug everything but they happen for us they have to really try to control as much as possible otherwise they can be unliable and so with that thank you very much I will see you again for the last video of this class which is going to focus on dilution and again any question reach out I as I said before um I understand that when we have these videos it's always limited time of information but and of course the readings also are um you know useful even during the slides I'll try to go straight to the point and what we need to know uh for the exam and what is really the bad the bread and butter material that we need to know but feel free to reach out all the time with any question and so on okay thank you very very much and have an excellent rest of the day thank you