Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legality of Brand Hate: Dilution v. Collusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Brand Hate

  • 1218 Accesses

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.

This chapter is modified from my original work published by Journal of Business Ethics as follows: “Exploring the Legality of Consumer Antibranding Activities in the Digital Age”. Journal of Business Ethics, forthcoming, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2585-5.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balabanis, G., & Craven, S. (1997). Consumer confusion from own brand lookalikes: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxman, R. E., Berger, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1992). Consumer brand confusion: A conceptual framework. Psychology & Marketing, 9(2), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harold, C. (2004). Pranking rhetoric: “Culture jamming” as media activism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21(3), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1952). Philosophy of right (T. Knox, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. (1997). The philosophy of intellectual property. In A. Moore (Ed.), Intellectual property (pp. 107–177). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J.-N. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katyal, S. K. (2006). Semiotic disobedience. Washington University Law Review, 84, 489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katyal, K. S. (2010). Stealth marketing and antibranding: The love that dare not speak its name. Buffalo Law Review, 58, 795–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A. J., & Carnahan, A. J. (2001). Battling the ‘CompanyNameSucks.com’ cyberactivists. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 13(3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J. M. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 742–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. (1999). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, W. S., & Suter, T. A. (2000). Trademark strategies online: Implications for intellectual property protection. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R., & Handelman, J. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthy, S., & Kucuk, S. U. (2009). Anti-branding on the internet. Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1119–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S. U. (2008). Negative double jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S. U. (2010). Negative double jeopardy revisited: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 150–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuk, S. U. (2015). A semiotic analysis of consumer-generated anti-branding. Marketing Theory, 15(2), 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasn, K. (2000). Culture jam: The uncooling of America. New York: Quill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loken, B., & Roedder-John, D. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lubochinski, E. J. (2003). Hegel’s secret: Personality and housemark cases. Emory Law Journal, 52, 489–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, L. R., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 129–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, P. (2010). The semiotics of brand. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, V.-W., Walsh, G., & Yamin, M. (2005). Towards a conceptual model of consumer confusion. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 143–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrin, M., & Jacoby, J. (2000). Trademark dilution: Empirical measures for an elusive concept. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(2), 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrin, M., Lee, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2006). Determinants of trademark dilution. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 248–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poiesz, T. B., & Verhallen, T. M. (1989). Brand confusion in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 8(3), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The nest practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, M. J. (1982). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 957–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinello, A. R. (2006). Online brands and trademark conflicts: A Hegelian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Tacoma, WA, USA

    S. Umit Kucuk

Authors
  1. S. Umit Kucuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kucuk, S.U. (2019). Legality of Brand Hate: Dilution v. Collusion. In: Brand Hate. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00380-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation