SENSE AND NONSENSE - JurisPro

SENSE AND NONSENSE IN MEASURINGSPONSORSHIP CONFUSION

JACOB JACOBY, PH.D.*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................... 63I. THE RELEVANT STATUTE .................................. 64

II. CONSIDERATIONS IN MEASURING SPONSORSHIP

CONFUSION ........................................... 64A. What Language Should be Used? .................... 66B. Should the Question Focus on Whether Permission was

"Obtained" or Whether Permission was "Required"? ... 68III. CASE LAW ON MEASURING SPONSORSHIP CONFUSION ... 70IV. THE "HAD TO GET (OBTAIN/RECETVE)" VERSUS "DID

GET (OBTAIN/RECEIVE)" CONTROVERSY ................... 75A. Novo-Nordisk v. Eli Lilly ........................... 75B. NFL Properties Inc. v. ProStyle Inc ................... 77C. The "Posing a Legal Question" Objection is Predicated

Upon Invalid Assumptions .......................... 80D. Revising the Permission Question .................... 85E. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney Burke ............. 92

V. WHERE Do WE Go FROM HER ...................... 93A. So What is Sense and What is Nonsense? ............ 95B. Closing Comments .................................. 96

INTRODUCTION

Examination of case law reveals emerging disagreement acrosscourts on what needs to be assessed when measuring "sponsorship"confusion. Various issues, including the logic underlying suchmeasurement, are discussed. In the process, the author explainswhy, from the perspective of both science and law, one approachaccepted by courts makes sense while another does not.

* Merchants Council Professor of Consumer Behavior and Retail Management,Leonard N. Stern School of Business New York University and President of Jacob JacobyResearch, Inc. Although no implication should be drawn that the following individualsnecessarily "approve of or sponsor" the views expressed herein, gratefully acknowledgedare helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript from the following: Leon B.Kaplan, Ph.D. (Princeton Research & Consulting Center), Richard Z. Lehv Esq. (FrossZelnick et al., N.Y.), J. Thomas McCarthy (University of San Francisco School of Law) andPasquale A. Razzano Esq. (Fitzpatrick, Cella et al., N.Y.).

HeinOnline -- 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 63 2006-2007