Article published In: Language for Specific Purposes
Edited by Antoon De Rycker, Kris Buyse and Lieve Vangehuchten
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 162] 2011
► pp. 63–83
The Linguist as Expert Witness in The Community Trademark Courts
Published online: 1 January 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.162.04gui
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.162.04gui
Abstract
This paper explores the way the linguist as expert witness may smooth the progress of legal decision-making in cases involving a Community trademark (CTM) dispute. The study hypothesizes that the seesaw of court decisions found in CTM disputes could be avoided, if linguists were called upon as experts by the courts. Therefore, the discussion attempts to provide an answer to the following research questions: (a) Can forensic linguists provide relevant evidence in CTM litigation? (b) If so, what is the nature of this evidence? And (c) is it possible to determine and measure the strength of mark and the likelihood of confusion between two marks in dispute? In order to answer these research questions, an authentic case was thoroughly examined. This involved revisiting the CTM litigation between the earlier German nation-al trademark Respicort (Mundipharma AG) and the international trademark Respicur (Altana Pharma AG). The record showed no indication that a linguist had participated in this case during the eight years the legal dispute lasted. For purposes of analysis, the parameters most commonly accepted by Community trademark courts were employed in the forensic linguistic review of the Respicort v. Respicur case, namely strength of mark and likelihood of confusion.
References (45)
Butters, R.R. (2010). Trademarks: Language that one owns. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 351–364). London & New York: Routledge.
(2008a). A linguistic look at trademark dilution. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 241, 507–519.
(2008b). Trademarks and other proprietary terms. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 231–247). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(2007). Changing linguistic issues in US trademark litigation. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M. & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law. (pp. 29–42). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
Butters, R.R. & Westerhaus, J. (2004). Linguistic change in words one owns: How trademarks become “generic”. In A. Curzan & K. Emmons (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II (pp. 111–123). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chambers, J.K. (2011). Curriculum Vitae. Online document: [URL] (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
Coulthard, M. (2010). In my opinion. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 473–486). London & New York: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K., & Woolls, D. (2010). Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 523–538). London and New York: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (Eds.) (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.
Dinwoodie, G.B. (2008). What linguistics can do for trademark law. In L. Bently, Davis, J. & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 140–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durant, A. (2008). How can I tell the trade mark on a piece of gingerbread from all the other marks on it? Naming and meaning in verbal trade mark signs. In L. Bently, Davis, J., & J. Ginsburg (Eds.), Trade marks and brands: An interdisciplinary critique (pp. 107–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eades, D. (1994). Forensic linguistics in Australia: An overview. Forensic Linguistics 11, 2, 113–32.
Gibbons, J., & Turell, M.T. (Eds.) (2008). Dimensions of forensic linguistics. AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Grant, T. (2010). Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 508–522). London & New York: Routledge.
(2008). Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 215–229). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Guillén-Nieto, V. (2008). El caso Respicort v. Respicur: Un dictamen pericial lingüístico sobre el conflicto entre marcas comunitarias. Unpublished MA Thesis. Directed by Dr. M.T. Turell. Master’s in Forensic Linguistics. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Hotta, S. (2006a). Functions of language in trademarks. Ritsumeikan Law Review (R. L. R.), 231, 1–19.
(2006b). A linguistic exploration of trademark dilution. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the second European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics/language and the law (pp. 179–186). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
Hotta, S. & Fujita, M. (2007). The psycholinguistic foundation of trademarks: An experimental study. In M.T. Turell, Spassova, M., & J. Cicres (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and the Law. (pp. 173–178). Barcelona: IULA, Documenta Universitaria.
Jessen, M. (2010). The forensic phonetician. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 378–394). London and New York: Routledge.
Nunberg, G. (2001). That’s correct. California Lawyer. July. On line document: [URL]. (Last accessed 20th April 2011).
Okawara, M.H. (2006). Linguistic analysis of some Japanese trademark cases. PhD dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Oyanedel, M. & Samaniego, J. (2004). Report written for the court’s consideration in a likelihood-of-confusion case in 2005 involving rival trademarks Paltomiel and Palto con Miel, Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia, Sentencia N 24/2005, Republica de Chile, 4. Online document: [URL] (Last accessed 10th March 2011).
Rieber, R.W. & Stewart, W.A. (Eds.) (1990). The language scientist as expert in the legal setting. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 6061. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Shudo, S. (2005). Towards more objective criteria for decisions on similarities in trademark disputes: What linguistic analysis may contribute. Conference paper, 7th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law, International Association of Forensic Linguists, Cardiff University, July 1–4.
(2002). The battles over linguistics and law. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Generic v. secondary meaning: Registry Hotel v. Hospitality Management. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 46–55). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Teaching a jury about meaning: Warren v. Prestone. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 56–68). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Sounding alike and meaning alike: Con Agra v. Hormell. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 69–80). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Descriptiveness: Nouns and modifiers: Woodroast Systems v. Restaurants Unlimited. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 81–94). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). The meaning of a patronymic prefix: McDonald’s v. Quality Inns. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 95–109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Sounding, looking, and meaning different: AMR Pharm v. American Home Products. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 110–115). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Differences in the ingredients, qualities, and characteristics of the products: Pyewacket v. Mattel. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 116–124). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Going beyond competing company and product names: Auto Nation v. Car Max. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 125–143). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Using foreign language words in trademarks: Alixandre Furs v. Alexandros Furs. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 144–149). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2002). Power, control and the ownership of language. In R. Shuy, Linguistic battles in trademark disputes (pp. 190–200). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Solan, L.M. (2010). The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 395–407). London and New York: Routledge
Solan, L. M. (1990). Does the legal system need experts in English syntax? In R.W. Rieber & W.A. Stewart (Eds.). The language scientist as expert in the legal setting (pp. 107–118). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 6061. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Turell, M.T. (2008). Plagiarism. In J. Gibbons & M.T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 265–299). AILA Applied Linguistics Series 5. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Boersma, P. & Weenik, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (v 5.2.21). Amsterdam: The Netherlands University of Amsterdam. On line document: [URL] (Last accessed 2nd February 2011).
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.