Dkk
19:42
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Lapp test
Read a random definition: New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
A quick definition of Lapp test:
The Lapp test is a way to figure out if two trademarks are too similar and could cause confusion for customers. It looks at things like how similar the marks are, how strong the original trademark is, how smart the customers are, and if the companies are trying to trick people. The test also considers if people have actually been confused before, if the products are similar, and if the companies are trying to sell to the same people. The Lapp test is just a guide, and courts can look at other things too. It's important to make sure trademarks are different enough so people can tell them apart.
A more thorough explanation:
The Lapp test is a standard used to determine if there is a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks. This test is used to determine if one trademark is causing confusion with another previously established trademark.
A likelihood of confusion exists when an allegedly infringing trademark is likely to cause an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers to be confused as to the source or origin of the products or services it is used to identify.
The Lapp test is a multi-factored test used to establish the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The Lapp factors include:
- Similarity of the marks
- Strength of plaintiff's mark
- Sophistication of consumers when making a purchase
- Intent of defendant in adopting the mark
- Evidence of actual confusion (or lack thereof)
- Similarity of marketing and advertising channels
- Extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same
- Product similarity; identity/function/use
- Other factors suggesting that consumers might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in defendants market, or expect the prior owner is likely to expand into defendant’s market.
The Lapp test is a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to assessing the likelihood of confusion. No single factor is dispositive and a finding of a likelihood of confusion does not require a positive finding on a majority of the factors listed.
For example, if a company named "Apple" started selling computers, and another company named "Aple" started selling similar computers, there would likely be a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks. This is because the marks are very similar, the products are similar, and the marketing channels are similar.
However, if a company named "Apple" started selling computers, and another company named "Orange" started selling similar computers, there would likely not be a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks. This is because the marks are not similar, the products are similar but have different names, and the marketing channels are likely different.