An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement
An Empirical Study of the Multifactor Tests for Trademark Infringement
复制标题
商标侵权多因素检验的实证研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barton Beebe
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barton Beebe
13个巡回法院对消费者混淆可能性的13种不同的多因素检验长期以来在美国商标诉讼中发挥着至关重要的作用，但它们很少得到学术界的关注，也没有得到实证分析。法院、评论员和从业者一直在猜测哪些因素（如果有的话）驱动了测试的结果，这些因素是如何相互作用的，最重要的是，在相同的事实下，巡回法院的不同测试是否会产生不同的结果。为了解决这些问题并最终改革多因素检验，本文阐述了对2000年至2004年五年期间所有已报告的联邦地区法院意见进行实证研究的结果，其中使用了消费者混淆可能性的多因素检验。在这个过程中，它提出了消费者混淆可能性的多因素测试，作为法律多因素决策的理想案例研究，并开发了一种方法和理论工具包，用于在采用多因素测试的许多法律领域研究这种形式的法律分析。本文从331份意见的原始数据集出发，发现不同电路在各自测试的应用和结果上存在显著差异。借鉴社会科学在认知和决策方面的最新研究成果，进一步表明法官采用“快速和节俭”的启发式来缩短多因素分析。有几个因素被证明是决定性的；其余的往好了说是多余的，往坏了说是无关紧要的。
The thirteen circuits’ thirteen different multifactor tests for the likelihood of consumer confusion have long played a role of central importance in American trademark litigation, yet they have received little academic attention and no empirical analysis. Courts, commentators, and practitioners have all the while speculated about which factors, if any, drive the outcome of the tests, how the factors interact, and, most importantly, whether the circuits’ different tests, given the same facts, would yield different outcomes. With a view to the settling of these questions and ultimately to the reform of the multifactor tests, this Article sets forth the results of an empirical study of all reported federal district court opinions for the five-year period from 2000 to 2004 in which a multifactor test for the likelihood of consumer confusion was used. In the process, it presents the multifactor test for the likelihood of consumer confusion as an ideal case study in legal multifactor decision making and develops a methodology and theoretical toolkit for the study of this form of legal analysis across the many areas of law that employ multifactor tests. Working from an original data set of 331 opinions, this Article finds significant variation among the circuits in the application and outcome of their respective tests. Drawing upon recent social science learning on cognition and decision making, it further shows that judges employ “fast and frugal” heuristics to short-circuit the multifactor analysis. A few factors prove to be decisive; the rest are at best redundant and at worst irrelevant.