A definition formulated by Foxman et al. (1992) encapsulated the concept of consumer brand confusion as “one or more errors in inferential processing that lead a consumer to
unknowingly form inaccurate beliefs about the attributes or performance of a less-known brand based on a more familiar brand’s attributes or performance” (p. 125). Based on the copyright and trade dress protection laws, four types of consumer confusion have been identified (Bharathi, 1996). They are namely, simple product confusion, confusion about the source of sponsorship, subliminal trademark association and reverse association. Simple product confusion occurs when consumers purchase a fashion item of one designer thinking that it is the creation of an entirely different designer. Confusion about the sources of sponsorship is when consumer believes that the imitator has received endorsement or approval from the original creators or sponsors of the original brand (Loken et al., 1986).
Subliminal trademark association occurs when the copier free-rides on an existing designer’s work through subtle or conscious association with an existing and protected trade dress (Foxman et al., 1992). Lastly, reverse association is when the consumer believes that the
67 copycat is the original creator of the fashion work (Bharathi, 1996). These forms of confusion commonly occur when consumers evaluate between the mimic and the model brand
(Balabanis and Craven, 1997).
The counterfeiting literature suggests that there are two types of consumers (Grossman and Shapiro, 1988). There are those who are deceived and the ones who are active seekers of counterfeits (Turunen and Laaksonen, 2011; Phau and Teah, 2009; ; Hopkins et al., 2003;
Wilcox et al., 2008; Hamelin et al., 2012). Consumers who are deceived by counterfeits are not aware and unable to identify a fake because of the close similarities between the
counterfeit and the original (Eisend and Schuchert-Güler, 2006). Whereas, the latter are consumers who knowingly purchase counterfeits and are conscious of their decision to do so.
Recent studies within the literature have examined the behaviour and motivations active seekers of counterfeits, who purposefully purchase counterfeits due to the benefits they can receive from such expeditions (Juggessur and Cohen, 2009; Wilcox et al., 2009). It is highlighted by d’Astous and Gargouri (2001) that many consumers are not mistaken but consider the purchase of a brand imitation willingly. However, most studies that examined deceived consumers discuss about the presence of consumer confusion that leads to wrong decisions and purchases (Balabanis and Craven, 1997). On this note, it was found that brand confusion is likely to occur with similarity between brands when consumer attention and product involvement is low (Kapfarer and Theonig, 1992). In addition, low consumer
familiarity and product experience adds to the likelihood of confusion (Foxman et al., 1990).
The negative effects of product similarity are not a minor issue, especially since it causes confusion. The legal implications are severe as confusion is seen as an important element in court decisions regarding trademark infringement (Foxman et al., 1992; Howard et al., 2000;
Warlop and Alba, 2004).
Similarly, consumers who are deceived by mimic brands in general are due to the fact that mimic brands are often closely similar in physical characteristics or the differences are indiscernible to the untrained consumer (Balabanis and Craven, 1997; Poddar et al., 2012).
According to a number of studies (Rafiq and Collins, 1996; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005;
Balabanis and Craven, 1997), 20 percent of the consumers often feel that retailer labels and manufacturer brands look so similar that there is a high degree of confusion between the two.
Studies have reinforced that similarity between products cause confusion, which in turn influences consumers to mistakenly select the wrong product (i.e. lookalikes) (Loken et al., 1986; Foxman et al., 1990; Balabanis and Craven, 1997; Lai and Zaichkowsky, 1999).
However, Dawar et al. (1992) suggested that purchases for different occasions may decrease confusion, such as when purchasing a gift for a special occasion. Arguably, most confusion cases occur for convenience goods because of the various situational factors that might influence a purchase (Foxman et al., 1992; Balabanis and Craven, 1997). In the case of luxury purchases, consumers may pay more attention to their purchases because of the amount of involvement that is required when making an important or a notably more expensive purchase (Balabanis and Craven, 1997).
Past studies that focused on discussing brand confusion have often focused on stimulus similarity (Loken et al., 1986; Miaoulis and d’Amato, 1978). It is postulated that the more similar the characteristics between two stimuli, the higher the likelihood of confusion
(Foxman et al., 1992). Hence, an important part of understanding brand confusion in this case is the ability to identify the key elements that affect perceived similarity between the stimuli.
For most consumer goods, brand confusion is anchored on the similarity of packaging, name of the product (that infers similar brand origin), and physical properties (Loken et al., 1986;
Foxman et al., 1992). However, various product categories may have other factors that may cause brand confusion, which requires further attention.
From the buyers’ perspective, confusion between trademark simply implies that the consumer do not get the brand they intend to buy (Balabanis and Craven, 1997). Hence, the key test for trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion (LOC) between trademarks (Allen, 1991). Furthermore, source confusion occurs when a reasonable number of consumers incorrectly believes that two brands share a common source (same brand origin), even when they do not (Howard et al., 2000). Examples of such occurrences stem from having closely similar brand names that infer similar brand origins (Kirkpatrick, 1998). In addition,
69 similarity in design, or the “trade dress” of a brand is found to have a significant impact on brand source confusion (Kapfarer, 1995). Deception then occurs when a brand knowingly and purposefully takes advantage of the circumstances, or (potentially) causes a consumer to act in a manner that he or she would not have done otherwise (Aditya, 2001). In addition, while deception may lead to brand confusion, they are not conceptually the same. Confusion can also occur based on individual characteristics, situational effects, and/or marketing actions (Foxman et al., 1992).