學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Will that brand extension hit legal headwinds? The natural expansion of a trademark
內容大綱
Entering a new product category or new geographic area may mean adding one or more new competitors with names similar to that of the now-extended brand names those competitors have trademarked or can claim by common law as first users. A company extending its brand therefore may be unable to use its own trademark legally unless it can show the brand extension as a natural expansion. Most such lawsuits settle, but this study uses legal research methods to examine 12 that went to trial. Results show a brand extender most often prevailing in court if and only if (1) its extension into a new product category is seen as similar to its current offerings or (2) its geographic expansion is seen as simply moving into an area in which it already has market presence. By contrast, a firm may lose out to a company already using a similar name for a diverse set of reasons: products differing from their current offerings, differing trademarks, weak marks, or if buyers seem unlikely to encounter both users of the name in question. But no bright line divides winners from losers.