Advertisement

Brand Hate pp 129-161 | Cite as

Legality of Brand Hate: Dilution v. Collusion

  • S. Umit Kucuk
Chapter

Abstract

I have discussed the legality of such anti-branding images and semiotics from various legal cases in this chapter. I have introduced and discussed various anti-branding dilution cases and re-conceptualized brand dilution as a matter of counter-posed brand meaning and associations in digital markets. I have discussed such anti-branding dilution cases from both a blurring and a tarnishment dilution basis. I discussed my interviews with consumers which revealed that anti-branding has less potential for brand dilution and more potential brand identity for collusion. By addressing both legal and marketing views of the meaning systems associated with the dilution versus collusion perspectives, this study provides an approach for understanding anti-branding dilution discussions and a way to develop better functioning branding exchange systems for digital markets. Consequently, possible changes in future branding ownership issues for digital markets are also envisioned in this chapter.

Keywords

Brand dilution Anti-brand dilution Blurring Brand tarnishment Brand identity Brand ownership 

References

  1. Bailey, A. A. (2004). Thiscompanysucks.com: The use of the internet in negative consumer-to-consumer articulations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(3), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balabanis, G., & Craven, S. (1997). Consumer confusion from own brand lookalikes: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beebe, B. (2008). The semiotic account of trademark doctrine and trademark culture. In G. B. Dinwoodie & M. D. Janis (Ed.), Trademark law and theory: A handbook of contemporary research (pp. 42–64). Research handbooks in intellectual property. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. Brengman, M., Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2001). The impact of consumer characteristics and campaign related factors on brand confusion in print advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 7, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foxman, R. E., Muehling, D. D., & Berger, P. W. (1990). An investigation of factors contributing to consumer brand confusion. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(1), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foxman, R. E., Berger, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1992). Consumer brand confusion: A conceptual framework. Psychology & Marketing, 9(2), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelb, B. D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1986). Humor and advertising effectiveness after repeated exposures to a radio commercial. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 15–20, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haase, M., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2011). Property rights design and market process: Implications for market theory, marketing theory, and S-D logic. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harold, C. (2004). Pranking rhetoric: “Culture jamming” as media activism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21(3), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hegel, G. W. F. (1952). Philosophy of right (T. Knox, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Holt, B. D. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollenbeck, R. C., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2010). Anti-brand communities, negotiation of brand meaning, and the learning process: The case of Wal-Mart. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 13(3), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, J. (1997). The philosophy of intellectual property. In A. Moore (Ed.), Intellectual property (pp. 107–177). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Kapferer, J.-N. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katyal, S. K. (2006). Semiotic disobedience. Washington University Law Review, 84, 489.Google Scholar
  17. Katyal, K. S. (2010). Stealth marketing and antibranding: The love that dare not speak its name. Buffalo Law Review, 58, 795–849.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, A. J., & Carnahan, A. J. (2001). Battling the ‘CompanyNameSucks.com’ cyberactivists. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 13(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  19. Kay, J. M. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 742–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, N. (1999). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  21. Kopp, W. S., & Suter, T. A. (2000). Trademark strategies online: Implications for intellectual property protection. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kozinets, R., & Handelman, J. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krishnamurthy, S., & Kucuk, S. U. (2009). Anti-branding on the internet. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1119–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kucuk, S. U. (2008). Negative double jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kucuk, S. U. (2010). Negative double jeopardy revisited: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kucuk, S. U. (2015). A semiotic analysis of consumer-generated anti-branding. Marketing Theory, 15(2), 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasn, K. (2000). Culture jam: The uncooling of America. New York: Quill.Google Scholar
  28. Loken, B., & Roedder-John, D. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loken, B., Ross, I., & Hinkle, R. L. (1986). Consumer “confusion” of origin and brand similarity perceptions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 5, 195–211.Google Scholar
  30. Lovejoy, N. B. (2011). Tarnishing the dilution by Tarnishment cause of action: Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. and V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley, compared. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26(1), 623–655.Google Scholar
  31. Lubochinski, E. J. (2003). Hegel’s secret: Personality and housemark cases. Emory Law Journal, 52, 489–514.Google Scholar
  32. Lusch, L. R., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manning, P. (2010). The semiotics of brand. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, V.-W., Walsh, G., & Yamin, M. (2005). Towards a conceptual model of consumer confusion. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 143–150.Google Scholar
  35. Morrin, M., & Jacoby, J. (2000). Trademark dilution: Empirical measures for an elusive concept. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morrin, M., Lee, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2006). Determinants of trademark dilution. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petty, D. R. (2010). The World Wide Web vs. National Trademark Laws—Protecting the brand in global commerce. International Trade & Academic Research Conference (ITARC), London.Google Scholar
  38. Petty, D. R. (2012). Using the law to protect the brand on social media sites: A three, “M” framework for marketing managers. Management Research Review, 35(9), 758–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poiesz, T. B., & Verhallen, T. M. (1989). Brand confusion in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 8(3), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The nest practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pullig, C., Simmons, C. J., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2006). Brand dilution: When do new brands hurt existing brands? Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Radin, M. J. (1982). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 957–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Severn, J., Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (1990). The effects of sexual and non-sexual advertising appeals and information level on cognitive processing and communication effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spinello, A. R. (2006). Online brands and trademark conflicts: A Hegelian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(3), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sweetin, V., Knowles, L. L., Summey, J. H., & McQueen, K. S. (2013). Willingness-to-punish the corporate brand for corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1822–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelgänger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L. M. (2012). Online damage control: The effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Umit Kucuk
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WashingtonTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations