If you are a parent, like I am, you are very likely familiar with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Formed in 1930 to address pediatric standards, it has grown to approximately 64,000 pediatricians throughout the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes position papers, based on scientific research, along with other books and magazines for health care professionals and consumers alike. Many pediatricians and parents view this group as the “go-to” organization for children’s health information.
Recently, when I saw a social media post from a friend declaring a new policy position from the American College of Pediatricians addressing a children’s health issue, I quickly clicked on it to see what I could learn. As I scanned through it, the content of the article seemed highly uncharacteristic of policy papers from the American Academy of Pediatrics I had read in the past. I was confused and could not figure out why the American Academy of Pediatrics had taken such an atypical stance compared to past policy positions.
Perhaps you, faster than I, caught my mistake as you read this. The policy position I read was from the American College of Pediatricians, and not the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The American College of Pediatrics was founded in 2002, has approximately 500 members, and is described by Wikipedia as a “socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.”
I am uncertain if the friend that shared the post originally, or any of those who re-shared or commented on the article, shared my confusion as to the article’s source. When I figured out my mistake, I researched the American Academy of Pediatrics, which had, in fact, taken a very different policy stance on the children’s health issue than the stance taken by the American College of Pediatricians. Apparently, there was sufficient confusion among social media readers to warrant a “Snopes” article.
Organizations or businesses with similar names, or trademarks, may result in a “likelihood of confusion” among consumers. The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedures explains the “likelihood of confusion” trademark standard as follows:
The issue is not whether the respective marks themselves … are likely to be confused but, rather, whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the … services because of the marks used thereon.
Sometimes the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks is minimal, or can be easily corrected. In other cases, it may be viewed as having a serious impact on the business or organization. (In a humorous example, although movie and book titles are not generally afforded trademark protection, a friend posted on Facebook how perplexed she was when the movie she went to see was nothing like the book she had read; apparently there were two different girls on two different trains.)
One factor to be considered in my example of the two pediatrics associations is the descriptiveness of the marks. While it is commonplace to use descriptive words (for example. “pediatrics” for a pediatric group) in the name of an association, such use of descriptive words can limit the scope of protection for that mark. Associations, in particular, can benefit from the advice of trademark counsel in the best way to name, protect, and enforce its marks.
The challenge with likelihood of confusion, of course, is that by the time the consumer realizes the mistake, the article may already have been read, the product or service already purchased, and/or the reputation of the company already damaged.
To prevent this type of confusion with an organization or business’s trademarks, it is best to select marks that are not so descriptive as to make enforcement of the mark difficult. Additionally, trademark owners should continue to monitor uses of its marks for potential consumer confusion and take action when appropriate to prevent harm to its reputation or lost sales or customers. Even when the marks may be viewed as descriptive, experienced trademark attorneys can assist the trademark owner to determine an appropriate legal strategy to reduce likelihood of confusion.
Small differences in trademarks can make a big difference in the message communicated to consumers.