Forensic analysis of graphic trademarks A multimodal social semiotic approach Christian Mosbæk Johannessen Industrial Ph.D.­thesis Danfoss A/S & Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark Supervisors: Ph.D Flemming Smedegaard, cand.phil. Frank Petersen & tekn.dr. Per Mollerup December 2010 Contents Contents Forensic analysis of graphic trademarks 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Background(s) 3 1.2.1 My own background 3 1.2.2 Danfoss A/S’s background 4 1.2.3 Current practice in trademark law 5 1.3 Research question(s) 7 1.3.1 The context of application 7 1.3.2 The object of inquiry 8 1.3.3 Hypothesis 10 1.3.4 The aim of the inquiry 12 1.3.5 The structure of the thesis 13 1.4 Corpus 14 1.4.1 Core corpus 14 1.4.2 Peripheral corpus 15 1.4.3 Miscellaneous data 15 1.5 Summary 16 2 Design of the inquiry 2.1 Introduction 18 2.2 The mode of inquiry 19 2.2.1 On not quite being a graphic designer 20 2.2.2 Research in Art and Design 20 2.2.3 The event of confusion 21 2.2.4 Point of observation: 1st person or 3rd person? 23 2.2.5 Visual literacy 25 2.2.6 Which level of literacy? Emic or etic categories? 28 2.5 Summary 30 3 State of the art 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 One phenomenon; many names 33 3.2.1 ‘Intersign’ or ‘intrasign’: Two diverging interests 33 3.2.2 Three different concepts of intrasign structure 37 3.3 Words and images 40 3.3.1 Logo: Logotype, icotype and mixed logo 40 3.3.2 Trademark: Word‐mark and figurative mark 42 3.3.3 Graphic design theory 43 3.3.3.1 Mollerup’s taxonomy of trademarks 43 3.3.3.2 Other classification schemes from design 44 3.3.3.3 Are such schemes useful? 47 3.3.4 Typography 47 3.4 Craftsmen versus theoreticians 49 3.4.1 Synchronic versus diachronic 49 Contents 3.4.2 Typological and topological meaning making 51 3.5 Summary 53 4 Multimodal Social Semiotics 4.1 Introduction 56 4.2 What is MSS? 57 4.2.1 What does ‘functional’ mean? 59 4.2.2 What does ‘systemic’ mean? 59 4.2.3 Linguistic and semiotic positions in MSS 61 4.3 What is ‘the system’? 65 4.3.1 Semiotic systems as ‘dynamic open systems’ 66 4.3.1.1 Halliday and Matthiessen’s ‘semogenesis’ 69 4.3.1.2 Lemke’s ‘Multiple Time Scales’ 70 4.3.2 Semiotic systems as paradigmatic choice relations 72 4.4 The system’s ‘architecture’ 75 4.4.1 Differences in SFL and MSS architecture 75 4.4.2 Instantiation 76 4.4.3 Metafunction 77 4.4.4 Stratification 79 4.4.4.1 The SFL concept of stratification 79 4.4.4.2 Towards an ecological theory of stratification 82 4.4.4.3 The MSS concept of stratification 85 4.4.5 Dare we speak of duality of patterning? 87 4.5 Summary 89 5 Shortcomings of MSS 5.1 Introduction 92 5.2 An overview of the corpus 93 5.3 Nike versus Li‐Ning Company 95 5.3.1 What is MSS good at? 96 5.3.2 A structurally simple subset of visual texts 99 5.3.3 Ideational meaning in case No. 3 101 5.3.4 Interpersonal meaning in case No. 3 104 5.4 Theoretical critique 108 5.4.1 An example: Modality 109 5.4.2 Colour and modality 109 5.5 Summary 113 Forensic analysis of graphic trademarks 6 Graphetics 6.1 Introduction 116 6.2 What is graphetics? 117 6.2.1 The apple case revisited 117 6.2.2 Performer and perceiver 119 6.3 What is articulation? 121 6.3.1 The acting body 122 6.3.1.1 The extended body 126 6.3.2 Substances 128 6.3.3 Tools 129 6.3.3.1 Technologies of the hand 131 6.3.3.2 Synthesizing technologies 135 6.3.4 Combining body, tool and substance 139 6.3.5 Lines and masses 142 6.4 What is graphic form? 145 6.5 Downward causation 150 6.5.1 The link between graphetics and graphology 153 6.6 Summary 158 7 Graphology 7.1 Introduction 162 7.2 Duality of patterning revisited 164 7.2.1 Metaphysical twists 165 7.3 A schematic overview 167 7.4 Graphic structure 168 7.4.1 Structural density 171 7.4.2 Structural complexity 172 7.4.3 Structural contrast 174 7.5 Graphic space 175 7.5.1 Magnitude 175 7.5.2 Figure versus ground 177 7.5.2.1 Gestalt terminology in an ecological framework 177 7.5.2.2 Figure and ground as structural variables 178 7.5.3 Framing and clustering 182 7.5.3.1 Framing: Above or below the line? 183 7.5.3.2 Framing 185 7.5.3.3 Clustering 186 7.5.4 Location 190 7.5.4.1 Meaning potential in the horizontal dimension 190 7.5.4.2 Meaning potential in the vertical dimension 191 7.5.4.3 Meaning potential in the radial dimension 192 7.5.4.4 The formal graphic structure of ‘location’ 193 7.5.5 Orientation 197 7.5.5.1 The formal graphic structure of ‘orientation’ 198 7.5.5.2 Orientation affects the shape of the ground 201 7.5.5.3 The meaning potential of ‘orientation’ 202 Contents 7.5.5.4 The challenge of represented depth 203 7.6 Form 205 7.6.1 Graphic shape 206 7.6.1.1 Gibson’s surface layout and synthetic tools 207 7.6.1.2 Straight versus un‐straight 210 7.6.1.3 Un‐straight: Curve versus angle 211 7.6.1.4 Concave versus convex 211 7.6.1.5 The analysis of ‘shape’ 212 7.6.1.6 The meaning potential of ‘shape’ 214 7.6.2 “Enshapening”: The rendition of graphic shape 217 7.6.2.1 Positive‐ versus negative shape 218 7.6.2.2 Conjoined‐ versus compounded shape 219 7.6.2.3 Line versus mass 221 7.6.2.4 A tentative permutation chart for ‘enshapening’ 222 7.6.2.5 Further notes on ‘the line’ 223 7.6.2.6 Forensic application of ‘enshapening’ 225 7.7 Summary 226 8 Application 8.1 Introduction 230 8.2 Intellectual Property Rights 231 8.2.1 The principle of ‘global appreciation’ 232 8.2.2 The ‘event of confusion’ revisited 233 8.2.3 Is the proposed scheme in violation of globality? 235 8.3 Danfoss A/S vs. Dazhou Co. Ltd. 237 8.3.1 A multimodal social semiotic approach 238 8.3.2 A graphetic approach to the case 239 8.3.3 A graphological approach to the case 242 8.3.3.1 The challenge of operationalization 243 8.3.3.2 Weight Scale Rating 244 8.3.3.3 Application of Weight Scale Rating 245 8.3.3.4 Shape and enshapening 248 8.4 Does the scheme do the job? 249 8.5 Summary 250 9 Conclusion 9.1 Introduction 254 9.2 Inquiry: What did we do? 255 9.3 Conclusion 263 9.4 Further perspectives 264 References 265 Appendix 1. Case presentations 275 Appendix 2. English abstract 283 Appendix 3. Dansk resumé 289 Forensic analysis of graphic trademarks Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Forensic analysis of graphic trademarks 1.1 Introduction This is an Industrial PhD‐thesis carried out at Danfoss A/S and the University of Southern Denmark. It has been partially subsidized by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. The thesis aims at using insights from Multimodal Social Semiotics in the pursuit of trademark counterfeiters. Over the recent years, many Danish companies have begun to feel the full impact of operating in the BRIK‐countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). With all the benefits of an introduction to these quickly expanding markets come a number of drawbacks such as counterfeiting of intellectual property (IP). Although the primary problem of counterfeiting is false merchandise, either in the form of 100% fakes or varying degrees of infringement,1 the thesis explores a secondary aspect of the counterfeiting problem, which revolves around the company’s trademark. More often than not, counterfeiters will attempt to market their false goods under infringing trademarks in order to exploit the brand value of the offended company. The legal term for this phenomenon is confusion of similar trademarks. Whenever someone designs a trademark that is confusingly similar to someone else’s mark, the reason is to create an association, to confuse the brand value of the infringed mark with one’s own. This is a substantial problem for the offended companies, not only because the infringement facilitates the marketing of false merchandise resulting in lost revenue, but also because the infringement erodes the value of the trademark.2 Although legal practice in this field is well established, new tools that can complement legal practice are in demand. This thesis aims to provide one such tool. At the very heart of trademark legal practice lays the comparison of trademarks. Its aim is to determine whether two marks are indeed confusingly similar. Trademark practice has a specific term for this kind of comparison, which is the assessment of likelihood of confusion. This is exactly what the thesis proposes to improve: As I shall demonstrate in section 1.2.3, the arguments in many such comparisons are ad hoc and unsystematic – especially when it comes to comparing the actual look of graphic trademarks.