Reverse confusion: a red herring or appropriate remedy?
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Reverse confusion: a red herring or appropriate remedy?

When The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company released its BIG FOOT TIRE, it didn’t realize that another, smaller company, Big O Tire, was already marketing a tire by the same name.

The result was a court ruling in favor of Big O and an award of about US$5 million in damages—a hefty sum in 1977.

This was a classic case of “reverse confusion,” a situation in which the plaintiff bringing a trademark claim is either a much smaller player or its mark is less well known than the defendant’s. This often leads to consumers believing the senior user’s product is associated with the junior user. But some panelists in yesterday’s session on reverse confusion at the INTA Annual Meeting questioned whether distinguishing reverse confusion from traditional—or forward—confusion is helpful, or even fair.

“Is reverse confusion really a distinct problem?” asked Professor Roger Schechter of George Washington University. Schechter suggested it might be useful to require registration for a reverse confusion claim, or to limit monetary remedies if the senior, lesser-known mark was not registered to curb abuse, since some see reverse confusion cases as encouraging extortion or blackmail of large companies by smaller players. Should a small senior user be entitled to corner the market on a name, even where use is limited and there is no goodwill, for example, asked Rita Odin of The Estée Lauder Companies.

However, Schechter pointed out that doing away with the concept of reverse confusion would result in a negative incentive for big brands. “Larger companies would have no inhibition about taking a smaller users’ mark, so it’s wise to provide some degree of remedy or relief,” said Schechter.

Robert MacDonald of Gowlings said that Canadian and UK courts have ignored the concept of reverse confusion for the most part, sticking to the traditional tests for actual confusion. “Canadian courts have said we’re not interested,” said MacDonald.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals its latest rankings for trademark work today, including which firms are on the up
The 2024 firm rankings for trademark disputes and protection work are now available on
Highlights from Sunday included judicial insight from across the globe and a keynote address from Martin Luther King Jr’s daughter
Managing IP’s senior reporter Rani Mehta interviewed attendees at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta about how they made the most out of their first day
A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Lawyers say a ruling concerning liability for trademark infringement could give company directors an easy way out and create litigation uncertainty
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 5th annual awards
Some US lawyers have strengthened their connections with European firms as they help clients determine whether the UPC will become a 'centre of gravity'
Gift this article