ACTS THAT MAY CAUSE CONFUSION AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON TOURISM 391 competitor and the effects of its actions, if any, should wear off in a short period of time. In the second scenario, since no law is being broken, the effects should last longer, causing undesired consequences for the market, other competitors and consumers. We will be further analysing the second scenario, but first, it is necessary to understand howUC law has a three-dimensional scope of protection. 4. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TOURISM SECTOR 4.1. Double Approach: Consumer – Competitor Although it is commonly known that UC law has a triple purpose protection for competitors, consumers and the market, this section will focus on how that relationship affects the tourism sector. Within the subjects of protection of the UC laws, the most vulnerable, and arguably most favoured, is the consumer. Because of the asymmetry of information principle, consumers are deemed as the weakest part in every consumption relationship. As the tourism industry is so broad, the high number of services and products to be consumed may become a potential problem for consumers. Further, the need for collaboration, as explained bellow, contributes to causing more complicated relationships where several stakeholders combine their capacities in order to provide integral services. All of these factors combined could give way to situations where the consumer is easily confused, whether that confusion is intentional or not. In order to protect consumers against such confusion, UC law has provided a certain mechanism to protect consumers. For instance, a subjective approach for confusion, as explained above, discards the need to prove the (likelihood of ) confusion objectively. This is why intention plays no role in the decision, except for the possible determination of bad faith which would affect the nature of the applied sanctions. Also, there is no prescription term for protection actions against confusion, since the remedy will be available as long as the confusion persists. The aforementioned explains why the administration can act ex officio in order to protect a consumer regardless of whatever outcome results from the competitors’ dispute or whether or not they decide to take action against a confusion-causing act. In Hjalager’s words (2001), “(…) tourists today are more experienced, informed, demanding, independent, easily accessible and able to organize their holidays independently and yet, somehow, more vulnerable to be confused”.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==