On the
other side, the purchaser could never have a feeling of security if
imitations were considered as still legally justifiable when the
difference is so small that it needs an intense mental effort and
careful examination of details to notice it.
The result is that the jurisdiction fluctuates between these two
extremes in a most alarming way, and this seems to hold true in all
countries. In theory: "There is substantial agreement that
infringement occurs when the marks, names, labels, or packings of one
trader resemble those of another sufficiently to make it probable that
ordinary purchasers, exercising no more care than such persons usually
do in purchasing the article in question, will be deceived." But it
depends upon the trade experts and the judges to give meaning to such
a statement in the particular case, as the amount of care which
purchasers usually exercise can be understood very differently.
Sometimes the customer is expected to proceed with an attention which
is most subtly adjusted to the finest differences, and sometimes it is
taken for granted that he is unable to notice even strong variations.
It is clear that this uncertainty which disturbs the whole trade
cannot be eliminated as long as the psychological background has not
been systematically studied. Mere talking about the attention of the
customer, and his ability to decide and select, and of his
observations and his habits in the spirit of popular common-sense
psychology, can never secure exact standards and definite demarcation
lines.
Pages:
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243