The Image Confusion in Trademark Map

Transcription

1 The Image Confusion in Trademark Map 1 Rain Chen, 2 I-Ting Cheng *1, Department of Creative Product Design, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C., ocean@mail.stust.edu.tw *2, Department of Industrial Design, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, R.O.C., ten9020@gmail.com Abstract Under the global competition, using integrated marketing of brands to raise the economic effect has become an important edge. Not only being distinguishable from competitors, brands can also become a key point of stimulating the behavior of purchase. Therefore the design of trademark images is extraordinarily important. Similar logo can cause lower rate of recognition, increase in the chance of consumers to misunderstand or mix up, and behavior of tort that lead to damage enterprise itself and customers. So far, in the world-famous periodicals and documents, we have not found related research of logo similarity; therefore, this will be a groundbreaking research. In this research, we choose logo of Coca Cola which has kept in leading position under the evaluation of brand consultant company Interbrand. We produced twelve images which including the original logo that were done by mixing up Coca Cola logo. In addition, we asked forty graphic designers who have worked in related field for over two years to assist in building distribution map of logo so that we can figure the main reason of mix-up in trademark image up. Enterprises can use this result to draft a strategy that make themselves become more competitive and unique. 1. Introduction Keywords: Image, Brand; Trademark, Recognition, And Similar. A trademark is the label, symbol, sign, or the aggregation of the above that businesses use for honoring their products or service brands [1] to differentiate the products or services of the same type in the market and to help consumers identify products [2], understand the sources and features of products [3], and publicize the businesses [4]. For this reason, a trademark is the guarantee of business reputation and product quality. World Intellectual Property Organization [5] defined trademark in general that a trademark was to have the owner gain awareness and profits as well as to prevent dishonest competitors from selling products or services with similar trademark. In the time of more and more Enterprises become international in Taiwan, how to make brand integrated marketing raise economic effect now has become an important issue. Higher popularity of brand image can affect more people to buy [6]. Therefore, some businessman will try to take advantage of consumers by using the similar brand image and damaging the legal right of consumer [7]. If you see a brand that can make you think of another brand, then there may be a trot between these two brands, even though their logo are distinguishable [8]. The Cause of the Confusion and Misidentification on TradeMark include 8 factor [9]: level strength of distinctiveness of the trademark(s); whether the trademarks are similar and if yes, the extent degree of similarity between them; whether the goods/services are similar and if yes, the extent degree of similarity between them; status of the diversified operation of the prior right holder; circumstances of actual confusion; the extent to which relevant consumers are familiar with the trademarks concerned; whether the applicant of the trademark at issue in question has filed such application in good faith; and other factors that may cause confusion. Keller [10] pointed out that how the brand to brand value chain to create value, it includes six factors: (1) price premiums, (2) price elastic ties, (3) market share, (4) expansion success, (5) cost structure, and (6) Profitability (Figure 1). Advances in information Sciences and Service Sciences(AISS) Volume4, Number20, Nov 2012 doi: /AISS.vol4.issue

2 Judicial adjudication of logo similarity here in Taiwan all depends on personal judgment of judges. In this research we try to discuss logo because we want to avoid mix-up problems due to plagiarism. We overlap and connect some geometric figures to produce a test for people to take, and we find out that designers can identify sub-figures easier than other people, which means designers have lower difference threshold of identification [11]. Therefore, we can take opinions from graphic designers to raise the objectivity on trial. How to let costumers can be able to understand logo similarity and the main cause of logo mix-up will become an important issue. Also makes related scholars focus on image research [12,13]. These are our main studying purposes in this research: To discuss the logo similarity and build distribution map of logo, then we can understand the cause of logo mix-up and misunderstanding. Find out the cognition difference of design similarity between gender, education or design years. This research can provide reference materials to enterprise and designers who want to design or choose a logo. 2. Method We use method of quantitative research and questionnaire to study logo familiarity and similarity. In addition, the conclusion is in accordance with combining data from ANOVA and multi-dimensional scale. 2.1 Subjects To study accurately and objectively, most of the subjects have worked as graphic designers for over two years, and they will take tests about logo familiarity and similarity. 2.2 Testing samples In recent years, the value estimate of brands which were reported by brand consultant company Interbrand [14] have been taken seriously. Therefore, we choose Coca Cola logo which is the number one on that value estimate in 2011 as our sample. We produced twelve images which including the original logo that were done by mixing up Coca Cola logo. These twelve images are our testing samples. The combination of logo include mark, standard words and standard color. However, enterprises tend to expend the protective range of their logo; therefore, the enterprises usually register their logo in the color of black. Here in our research we try to do the same thing, so we use black trademark images as testing samples. 2.3 Questionnaire design We divide the contents of our questionnaire into logo familiarity and similarity, etc. We tried to imitate Coca Cola logo and then produced eleven logos. The type of logo similarity can be classified into alphabet similar, pronunciation similar and font similar. We also made these logos size equally to be on the questionnaire. We took advise from Plummer (1974) [15] that we added demographic variables into the questionnaire such as gender, age, education and design years. The contents of questionnaire has two parts, the first part is for subjects to fill in some basic and logo familiarity questions. The second part is judgment of logo similarity, and we will have five scales of answers for subjects to pick. The twelve logo samples are in the Figure 2. 28

3 3. Results This research is going to discuss the level of logo similarity, and quantitate the level of similar or not similar. In addition, we also will try to compare groups in different gender, age, level of education, design years to see if there exist differences. The ratio of women and men are 65% and 35% in forty subjects; the ratio of age: 2 people are twenty years old (5%), 26 people are between 21 to 25 years old (64%), 9 people are between 26 to 30 (23%), 2 people are between 31 to 35 (5%), only one person is 41 years old (3%); the ratio of education: 27 college students (68%), 13 masters (32%); the ratio of design years: 15 people have worked for two years(38%), 15 people have worked for three to five years (38%), 9 people have worked for six to eight years (23%), only one person have worked for nine years (1%). 3.1 The result of logo similarity research In the Figure 3, you can see the sampling ratio of men and women are 14: 26. The scores of men are higher than woman in the test of sample similarity, especially he font sample f1-f3 which shows under the same test men can tell more differences between two samples than women. In the Figure 4, you can see two peaks in a4 (alphabet sample) and p4 (pronunciation sample) under the ages between 21 to 25. The score of group between 31 to 35 are lower than other groups, so it means they see less differences than others. In Figure 5, the main subjects are college students, masters and doctors. We find out that masters and doctors can reach higher score of judging logo similarity in F1-F3, and college students are tending to think that two samples are identical. In addition, there are almost no differences in scores of alphabet sample A1-A4 and pronunciation sample P1-P4. In Figure 6, the most design years of subjects are between 2 to 8 years, yet we find out that the score of them to identify the level of similarity in alphabet samples, pronunciation samples are quite the same. Therefore we believe that design years do not affect judgment of similarity. 3.2 Analysis of variances (significance) We want to analyze the variances of gender, education, age, and design years. Table 1 displays that the level of being familiar with Coca Cola logo is significant, which we can see that age do affect the familiarity of Coca Cola logo. We move forward to do ANOVA in Coca Cola logo and other similar logos. Table 2 shows that there exists significance in eleven logo samples. The result tell us that judgment of logo similarity in alphabet sample A1 and pronunciation sample P1 can be affected by level of age. 3.3 Trademark image distribution map We use MDS to do the analysis. Dissimilarity matrix of samples by graphic designers shown in Table 3. Fig 7 give us information about distance between twelve sample logos in 2-dimensional space (closer distance means they have more identical). The result shows that stress coefficient is , RSQ is If the number of coefficient is less than 0.5, which means good based on the level of cooperation. The logo distribution map is built to explain the situation of spreading logo. We drew logo distribution map in 2-dimensional space to show the spreading situation of logo samples, and this is the easiest way for people to see. According to the MDS result, we will show the twelve trademark logos which are under judgment of graphic designers in 2-dimensional coordinate. According to the attribute of trademark samples, we can sum them up into four main groups: (1) Original Coca Cola logo (O1); (2) Alphabet logo samples (A1-A4); (3) Pronunciation logo samples (P1-P4); (4) Font logo samples (F1-F3). Figure 7 shows there are spreading differences in trademark logo distribution map, and grouped font logo samples (F1, F2, F3) are the farthest from original Coca Cola logo, which means that graphic designers can judge mix-up font clearly. P3 is the farthest sample from O1, and the second farthest is A1, which indicate that similar pronunciation and similar alphabet can be the main cause of mix-up problems. 29

4 4. Discussion and conclusion In the global competition, taking brand integration marketing to enhance economic efficiency has become an important competitive weapon, competitors will differ apart by the brand, and it is the key to stimulate buying behavior. Therefore, the design of the brand trademark symbol is particularly important. Trademark and competition related to high similarity design will not only reduce the impact of mark recognition rate of the uniqueness of the brand, but also increase consumer confusion, slip off the opportunity to act even constitute trademark infringement, destruction of the enterprise itself and the interests of consumers. In this study, multiple element scales to approximate the distribution map of the building trademarks, images, style is intended to provide trademark owners and designers more understanding but lead to confusion, mistake of the main factors and objective identification mark with the approximate nature of the benefit of companies elected are different by competitors of the trademark design. With objective trademark identifications, this study, according to the analyses of trademark data, emphasizes the definition of actual extent of protection of trademark registration as well as the establishment of trademark map to present the similarities among business trademarks for brand designs and protections. The application of brand logo is emphasizing marketing nowadays. However the fierce competition between enterprises will make marketing research become an negative way to win. Instead, they will find a way to suppress their enemy and monopolize the market. Therefore, we believe trademark image distribution map will become one of the best tools to make brand strategy. There are three advantages of building trademark image distribution map: (1) To survey your own trademark image and see if it is highly distinguishable from others. (2) To clarify your own trademark image, and to prevent mix-up problems or trot. (3) Provide references from graphic designers to make sure your logo is distinguishable. This research is helped by forty graphic designers which their seniority are all over two years to build up this trademark image distribution map, and we try to find out the main reason of mixing up trademark images. Attainable by the Institute of research results are as follows - (1) the use of visually similar trademarks can build distribution map, mark the distribution of the distance between the sample clearly show, it will help to understand the similarity between the trademark samples. (2) through an understanding of the similarity between the trademark samples, to seek the cause of its confusion, mistake of the main factors. In addition, enterprises can produce logo strategy due to our results. Even though every country has it own law to protect intellectual property rights, our logo distribution map will be a universal method. Therefore we suggest that enterprises can follow our steps to build up logo distribution map and then develop it to become brand strategy which can make the enterprises much more competitive than others. 5. Acknowledgment This work was partially supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, under the Grant No. NSC E References [1] Fred Palumbo, Paul Herbig, The multicultural context of brand loyalty, European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 3 no. 3, pp , [2] Anthony J. Dukes, The Value of a Brand. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, vol. 84 no. 3, pp. 4-5, [3] David W. Barnes, One Trademark Per Sourc, Tex Intellect Prop Law, vol. 18 no. 1, pp. 1-54, [4] H. Roy Berkenstock, Baseline Protection of Intellectual Property: Trademarks, Federal Lawyer, vol. 54 no. 1, pp , [5] Rain Chen, Eva Chang, Trademark Map: A New Measure for Brand Position, Second Asia- Pacific Innovation Conference (Singapore), 2011/05/ /05/04, Session 6, P.6.2,

5 [6] Brian T. Parker, A comparison of brand personality and branduser-imagery Congruence, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 26 no. 3, pp , [7] Yosef Mealema, Yacov Yacobib, Gideon Yaniv, Trademark infringement and optimal monitoring policy, Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 62, pp , [8] Adam Arvidsson, Brand value, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 13 no. 3, pp , [9] TIPO, Trademark Examination Guidelines on Likelihood of Confusion, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, TIPO 2012/6/15 from: [10] Kevin Lane Keller, Donald R. Lchmann, How Do Brands Create Value? Value emerges through a unique chain of events, Marketing Management, vol. 12, pp , [11] Yu-Tung Liu, Some phenomena of seeing shapes in design, Design Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, pp , [12] Liang jingmin, Color Image Segmentation of Foreground and Background based on Mean Shift Algorithm, International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp , [13] Kun Zhao, Wenjun Zhang, Wei Li, Multi-Level Objects Based Image Vectorization with Semantic Interaction, International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp , [14] Interbrand 2011 Ranking of the Top 100 Brands 2011/11/05 from: aspx. [15] Joseph T. Plummer, The Concept and Application of Life-Style Segmentation, Journal of Marketing, vol. 38. pp , Table 1. The significance of familiarity, gender, education, age, design years Items Gender Age Education Design years p value * *Significant level (p<=0.05), Significant difference Table 2. The significance of logo samples, gender, education, age, design years Sample Gender Age Education Design years A1O * A2O A3O A4O P1O * P2O P3O P4O F1O F2O F3O *Significant level (p<=0.05), Significant difference 31

6 Table 3. Dissimilarity matrix of samples by graphic designers A1 A2 A3 A4 P1 P2 P3 P4 F1 F2 F3 O1 A A A A P P P P F F F O Figure 1. Keller's brand value chain model. Figure 2. Logo samples for tests. 32

7 Figure 3. The level of logo similarity from judgment in gender of graphic designers. Figure 4. The level of logo similarity from judgment in age of graphic designers. Figure 5. The level of logo similarity from judgment in education of graphic designers. 33

8 Figure 6. The level of logo similarity from judgment in design seniority of graphic designers. Figure 7. The similar logo distribution map from judgment of graphic designers. 34