Empirical Investigation of Sport Trademark Dilution Using Contingent Valuation Method

in Journal of Sport Management
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD $84.00

1 year subscription

USD $111.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD $159.00

2 year subscription

USD $208.00

Under the federal trademark law, owners of famous sport trademarks may bring legal claims against unauthorized users of their marks under the infringement and dilution theory. Although the rationale of trademark infringement has been supported by various notions of consumer psychology and law and economics, the theory of dilution has been criticized for the lack of empirical support. This study investigated whether the junior use of major sport trademarks would have dilutive effects on the senior marks in financial terms. The study employed the contingent valuation method, a technique designed to estimate the economic values of nonpecuniary assets such as trademarks. A total of 140 subjects were exposed to dilutive information while they purchased sport brand merchandise. A series of pre- and posttests revealed that moderately famous sport trademarks suffered dilutive harm from junior use, whereas exceptionally famous marks were immune to the dilutive effects. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

The authors are with Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA.

Cho (scho@bgsu.edu) is corresponding author.
Journal of Sport Management
Article Sections
References
  • AakerD.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: The Free Press.

  • AbdullahS. & JeantyP.W. (2011). Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(6) 29742983. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2nd Cir., 1976).

    • Export Citation
  • Adidas v. Herbalife, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13327 (D. Ore. Feb. 10, 2010).

    • Export Citation
  • Adidas v. Herbalife, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69858 (D. Ore. May 18, 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • AjzenI.BrownT.C. & RosenthalL.H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1) 4357. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association. (2015). AIPLA 2015 Report of the Economic Survey Shows Trends in IP Litigation Costs. Retrieved from http://files.ctctcdn.com/e79ee274201/b6ced6c3-d1ee-4ee7-9873-352dbe08d8fd.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AntenT. (2005). In defense of trademark dilution surveys: A post-Moseley proposal. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 39(1) 145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AtkinsonG.MouratoS.SzymanskiS. & OzdemirogluE. (2008). Are we willing to pay enough to back the bid? Valuing the intangible impacts of London’s bid to host the 2012 summer Olympic games. Urban Studies 45(2) 419444. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AverittN.W. & LandeR.H. (1997). Consumer choice: The practical reason for both antitrust and consumer protection law. Loyola Consumer Law Review 1044.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BeebeB. (2008). The continuing debacle of U.S. antidilution law: Evidence from the first year of trademark dilution revision act case law. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal 24(3) 449467.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BeerlineJ.F. (2008). Anti-dilution law, new and improved: The trademark dilution revision act of 2006. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 23(1) 511535.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BibleP.M. (1998). Defining and quantifying dilution under the federal trademark dilution act of 1995: Using survey evidence to show actual dilution. University of Colorado Law Review 70(1) 295.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BradfordL.R. (2008). Emotion, dilution, and the trademark consumer. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 23(4) 12271298.

  • BunkerM.D.StovallJ.G. & CotterP.R. (2004). Proving dilution: Survey evidence in trademark dilution actions. University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law Journal 133755.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarsonR.T. & MitchellR.C. (1993). The value of clean water: The public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 29(7) 24452454. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

    • Export Citation
  • ChoS. (2015). Empirical substantiation of sport trademark dilution: Quasi-experimental examination of dilutive effects. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 25(1) 2755. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ChoS. & MoormanA. (2014). An examination of the psychometrical comparability of survey evidence in sport trademark litigation. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 24(1) 323. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ChoiJ.P. (2009). Alternative damage rules and probabilistic intellectual property rights: Unjust enrichment, lost profits, and reasonable royalty remedies. Information Economics and Policy 21(2) 145157. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • CuranP.D. (2004). Diluting the commercial speech doctrine: “Noncommercial use” and the federal trademark dilution act. The University of Chicago Law Review 71(3) 10771108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EdgecombeJ.R. (2002). Off the mark: Bringing the federal trademark dilution act in line with established trademark law. Emory Law Journal 51(3) 1247.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA. & LangA.G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41(4) 11491160. PubMed ID: 19897823 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GeorgeA. (2005). Brand rules: When branding lore meets trademark law. Journal of Brand Management 13(3) 215232. doi:

  • GoldmanL. (2004). Proving dilution. University of Miami Law Review 58(2) 569608.

  • GrinvaldL.C. (2011). Shaming trademark bullies. Wisconsin Law Review 2011(3) 626.

  • Gurhan-CanliZ. & MaheswaranD. (1998). The effects of extension on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research 35(4) 464473.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GwinnerK. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review 14(3) 145158. doi:

  • HopkinsP.E. (1996). The effect of financial statement classification of hybrid financial instruments on financial analysts’ stock price judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 343350. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HuckS.W. (2012). Reading Statistics and Research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

  • HumphreysB.R.JohnsonB.K.MasonD.S. & WhiteheadJ.C. (2011). Estimating the value of medal success at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (Working Paper 2011–20). University of Alberta, Faculty of Art, Department of Economics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnD.R.LokenB. & JoinerC. (1998). The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? Journal of Marketing 62(1) 1932. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnsonB.K.GroothuisP.A. & WhiteheadJ.C. (2001). The value of public goods generated by a major league sports team: The CVM approach. Journal of Sports Economics 2(1) 621. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnsonB.K. & WhiteheadJ.C. (2000). The value of public goods from sport stadiums: The CVM approach. Contemporary Economic Policy 18(1) 4858. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JohnsonB.K.WhiteheadJ.C.MasonD.S. & WalkerG.J. (2007). Willingness to pay for amateur sport and recreation programs. Contemporary Economic Policy 25(4) 553564. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KahnM.A. (2004). May the best merchandise win: The law of non-trademark uses of sports logos. Marquette Sports Law Review 14(2) 283.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KaiserJ.C. (2005). Victor’s not so little secret: Trademark dilution is difficult but not impossible to prove following Moseley v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc. Chicago-Kent Law Review 80(1) 425.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KallasZ. & GilJ.M. (2012). Combining contingent valuation with the analytical hierarchy process to decompose the value of rabbit meat. Food Quality and Preference 24(2) 251259. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KellerK.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1) 122. doi:

  • LandesW.M. & PosnerR.A. (1987). Trademark law: An economic perspective. The Journal of Law & Economics 30(2) 265309. doi:

  • Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq.

  • LauK.C. & PhauI. (2007). Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Examining antecedents and implications towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychology & Marketing 24(5) 421444. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LeeJ.L. & JamesJ.D. (2015). Assessing sport brand value through use of the contingent valuation method. Journal of Economic & Financial Studies 3(6) 3344. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LemleyM.A. (1999). The modern Lanham act and the death of common sense. The Yale Law Journal 108(7) 16871715. doi:

  • Le PéruA. (2004). Branding and territories: The conflict of applying domestic laws to universal trademarks (Unpublished master’s thesis). McGill UniversityCanada.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LokenB & JohnD.R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing 57(3) 7184. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LongC. (2006). Dilution. Columbia Law Review 106(5) 10291078.

  • LynchJ. & SchulerD. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology & Marketing 11(5) 417445. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MagidJ.M.CoxA.D. & CoxD.S. (2006). Quantifying brand image: Empirical evidence of trademark dilution. American Business Law Journal 43(1) 142. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MaglioccaG.N. (2001). One and inseparable: Dilution and infringement in trademark law. Minnesota Law Review 85(4) 9491036.

  • MandlerG. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. Clark& S. Fiske (Eds.) Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 333). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MantaI.D. (2007). In search of validity: A new model for the content and procedural treatment of trademark infringement surveys. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 24(3) 10271072.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCabeK.B. (2000). Dilution-by-blurring: A theory caught in the shadow of trademark infringement. Fordham Law Review 68(5) 18271874.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCarthyJ.T. (2004). Proving a trademark has been diluted: Theories or fact? Houston Law Review 41(3) 713747.

  • McCrackenG. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research 16(3) 310321. doi:

  • McKennaM.P. (2009). Testing modern trademark law’s theory of harm. Iowa Law Review 95(1) 63117.

  • MorrinM. & JacobyJ. (2000). Trademark dilution: Empirical measures for an elusive concept. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(2) 265276. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moseley et al. v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al. 537 U.S. 418 (2003).

    • Export Citation
  • Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal, Inc., 84 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1521 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007).

    • Export Citation
  • OhmP. (2013). Branding privacy. Minnesota Law Review 97(3) 907989.

  • Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics, Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).

    • Export Citation
  • PortK.L. (2000). The congressional expansion of American trademark law: A civil law system in the making. Wake Forest Law Review 35(4) 827913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PulligC.SimmonsC.J. & NetemeyerR.G. (2006). Brand dilution: When do new brands hurt existing brands? Journal of Marketing 70(2) 5266. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RulleauB.DehezJ. & PointP. (2012). Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation. Tourism Management 33(1) 195204. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RyanM. & WatsonV. (2009). Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 18(4) 389401. PubMed ID: 18677721 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchechterF.I. (1927). The rational basis of trademark protection. Harvard Law Review 40(6) 813833. doi:

  • ScullinM.K. & BliwiseD.L. (2015). Sleep, cognition, and normal aging: Integrating a half century of multidisciplinary research. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(1) 97137. PubMed ID: 25620997 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ShantiA.O. (2001). Measuring fame: The use of empirical evidence in dilution actions. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 5177210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ShuyR. (2002). Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • SimonC.J. & SullivanM.W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science 12(1) 2852. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SimonsonA.F. (1993). How and when do trademarks dilute: A behavioral framework to judge likelihood of dilution. Trademark Reporter 83149174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SüssmuthB.MaennigW. & HeyneM. (2010). Induced civic pride and integration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 72(2) 202220.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ThurmonM.A. (2009). Recent developments in trademark law. Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal 9160.

  • Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) (West 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2) (West 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A) (West 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • TushnetR. (2008). Gone in sixty milliseconds: Trademark law and cognitive science. Texas Law Review 86(3) 507568.

  • VapnyarV. (2003). Moseley v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc.: Redefining the scope of the federal trademark dilution act. St. John’s Law Review 77(3) 67596. PubMed ID: 31363520.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).

  • WilliamsH.L.GiesekingC.F. & LubinA. (1966). Some effects of sleep loss on memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills 23(Suppl. 3) 12871293. PubMed ID: 5972935 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Article Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 127 127 31
Full Text Views 28 28 8
PDF Downloads 20 20 6
Altmetric Badge
PubMed
Google Scholar