384 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM the consequence being the consumer’s error of judgement. Since confusion acts are limited to the unfair use of a third party’s means of commercial distinction, its determination process is similar to establishing a likelihood of confusion for trademarks, by adding an unsuspecting burden of subjectivity to the analysis. In order to differentiate both acts, judges must first determine the object of protection and then proceed to decide whether the confusion is a consequence of the act, in which case it would be imitation, or if it constitutes the real act. 2.2. Imitation Acts Prima facie imitation acts are a natural and desired consequence of competition. However, exact and exhaustive imitation acts are generally forbidden by law. Usually, imitation revolves around successful business models, increasing the possibilities for consumers to have a shot at living the same experience as others, without having to interact with the same firm. This is highly improbable given the high flow of tourists, time limitations and sometimes the money factor. However, some types of imitation can be damaging to the market and to the consumer, not to mention the quality of the experience, which is why they are meticulously regulated by law. Imitation acts fall within a borderline that is shared between unfair competition (UC) and industrial property (IP). This is due to the fact that a common element in imitation acts is the unauthorised use of protected IP rights, such as trademarks, trade dress, designs, etc. Although it should still be clarified that imitation can occur without the use of IP rights. The aforesaid serves to establish that in some cases, imitation acts can be remedied through IP actions or UC actions and the specifics of its exercise vary according to the legal system. As previously mentioned, imitation is a natural consequence of competence. Therefore, most legislations do not forbid imitation per se, but its specific configuration. As a result, it is common for unfair competition laws to establish the premise where the imitation of business initiatives is perfectly legal, as long as it does not include the use of protected rights or, in any way, cause confusion or its likelihood. Such requirement is yet another common element within IP, where the likelihood of confusion plays a fundamental role in the protection of exclusive rights; however, additional requirements, such as concurrence, are called for when pursuing unfair competition. The reason imitation acts are allowed unless they violate protected rights is because of common reasoning which indicates that this kind of freedom promotes competition and boosts innovation. Based on the fact that when
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==