Defining counterfeiting downward
Counterfeit Chic happens upon a new defense to trademark counterfeiting: “Counterfeiting? You call this counterfeiting?!”
We’ve all seen imitation goods so poorly rendered that they wouldnt fool a myopic Martian on a dark night. And there must be a market out there beyond mere video fiction, or LV look-alikes wouldnt keep showing up on shady street corners and in dark corners of the internet, next to the “Prado” and “Channel” bags. But why would any self-respecting counterfeiter turn out such bad fakes?
It turns out there’s method to the madness. In theory, these inept imitations could allow a manufacturer/importer/seller to avoid liability under the rationale that there’s no likelihood of consumer confusion. In practice, however, courts dont like apparent bad actors.
Or have all that much interest in things like likelihood of consumer confusion, actually. In practice.
On the other hand, as much as I rail against that judicial trend around here, when it comes to trademark counterfeiting I don’t have a big problem with it; it’s nearly a per se, strict liability tort, and that’s what it is. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where sloppy work is anything other than its own reward, after all.
Originally posted 2010-07-23 10:58:27. Republished by Blog Post Promoter