> Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it.
You are right, its definitely not sufficient and from what I can tell legally, the main test in the cases we have been talking about is whether or not its likely to confuse consumers.
So in the case of the screens, the fact that it is a tiny logo on a functional internal component that the consumer won't see strongly indicates there is little intent or risk of consumer confusion.
In the case of the shoes, there is risk of confusion. Its possible that it could be made legal if sold as "Sketcher's Shoe with Custom Louis Vuitton laces" as that would mitigate the risk of confusion.
You are right, its definitely not sufficient and from what I can tell legally, the main test in the cases we have been talking about is whether or not its likely to confuse consumers.
So in the case of the screens, the fact that it is a tiny logo on a functional internal component that the consumer won't see strongly indicates there is little intent or risk of consumer confusion.
In the case of the shoes, there is risk of confusion. Its possible that it could be made legal if sold as "Sketcher's Shoe with Custom Louis Vuitton laces" as that would mitigate the risk of confusion.