ACTS THAT MAY CAUSE CONFUSION AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON TOURISM 383 (2) Any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition. (3) The following, in particular, shall be prohibited: 1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor; (…) Unlike PUC, national legislations have opted for a different and more specific regulation by typifying imitation and confusion acts as two different forms of unfair competition. However, the fact that PUC has encompassed all acts which may result in consumer’s confusion – imitation and confusion acts included – in a single provision, makes the regulation of such acts mandatory for all contracting parties. This explanation clarifies the fact that at an international level, imitation acts are embedded within a wider genre “acts which may cause confusion”, but it is possible to find imitation specifically treated at a national legislative level. In this order, national legislations distinguish “acts of imitation” from “confusion acts”. We will use the same distinction for the purposes of this text. The text in this chapter will also include two similar terms: “confusion acts” and “confusion-causing acts”. The first will only encompass the specific confusion act as regulated in national legislation, while the second refers to the broader concept provided by PUC regulations and will include not only confusion acts, but also imitation acts. It is important then, to point out the differences between these two forms of unfair competition in order to establish their variances in regulatory treatment and legal effects. Confusion and imitation acts are peripheral in terms of constitutive elements and effects, which is why it is so easy to mistake them for each other. It is widely accepted that the primary difference between both acts is their object of protection. As briefly explained above, while protection against unfair imitation acts covers the simulation of one’s goods or services, as the material creation per se, confusion acts protects the owners against unauthorised/unfair use of their means for commercial identification (e.g. distinctive signs, packaging, etc.). Since the resulting confusion is a common requirement for appreciating both acts, a lack of confusion can withdraw the “unfairness” of them. However, the most important difference between the confusion elements lays in its own role. While in imitation acts, confusion is one of two possible outcomes (the other one being misappropriation), in confusion acts it is the very essence;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==