The paper "Intelectual Property Law" is a perfect example of a case study on the law. Reed’ s argument that Reed had no foreknowledge of the existence of Raybok would not be justified on the grounds that he did not have foreknowledge that Raybok already existed because according to the USPTO, “ The principal factors considered by the examining attorney in determining whether there would be a likelihood of confusion” includes when “ similarity of the marks; and the commercial relationship between the goods and/or services listed in the application” (All Experts, 2011). What is even worse is that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Moreover, not only is there the similarity in the product but then there is similarity in the sound of the name of Reed’ s shoe line with Raybok. Jassin (2011) posits that “ if a company can demonstrate that another company's name could cause confusion among potential customers, it can sue for trademark infringement, even if the trademark isn't registered. ” Based on the discussion above, Reed would not have any right to use the name Reedbok for his line of shoes. On the payment of profits to Raybok however, Reedbok has a cause to defend itself against the payment because it is not counterfeiting the shoes of Raybok with that same name but then producing the shoes under a different name.
This is in light of the law, which states that “ a company must not use a trading name, trademark and/or geographic indication belonging to another entity as its company name” (In the House Lawyer, 2010). Of course, the name Reedbok is not the same as Raybok. Consumer vigilance has never been the duty or responsibility of owners of companies or copyright holders of names of products.
Consumers are liable for their own choices. For this reason, if any consumer out of ignorance or carelessness refuses to critically examine the shoes and buys the shoes thinking they are Raybok instead of Reedbok, Reed would not be the one at fault here and so would not be held accountable to pay any earnings to Raybok.