10 Easy Ways to Ruin An Intellectual Property Survey

Article Abstract:

This article contains critical information about how to plan, compile and execute strong intellectual property surveys for courtroom use. This article approaches the topic from a practical perspective, using experiential data gathered during a decade of compiling IP surveys.

About The Author:

This expert does extensive consulting and expert witness work for intellectual property attorneys throughout the U.S. His/her areas of expertise are marketing communications and surveys. His/her survey work focuses on infringement issues, including likelihood of confusion, trade dress and secondary meaning. S/he develops IP surveys and critiques adversarial surveys. This expert is an often-published freelance business writer, and a faculty member at a university where s/he teaches a variety of courses in marketing.

If you would like additional information about the author's services as an expert witness and/or consultant,
contact the Legal Expert Network at 1-800-597-5371.

The great Larry Bird was once asked by a sportswriter why he plays basketball. He replied - "I play to win."

This article is about winning - about knowing which techniques positively influence a case or discredit an opponent. This is not intended as a scholarly article - it includes "street smart " information I have learned based on my own experiences and observations in the firing line. In the last 10 years, I have compiled dozens of intellectual property surveys and have been deposed almost as many times.

While a well-planned and executed survey can create powerful evidence in a trademark infringement case, such a survey can also be a major liability in the hands of a smart adversary. If designed or implemented improperly, your survey can boomerang into a weapon for your opponent.

My best advice is to program into your survey design those very criticisms you can expect during deposition and/or cross-examination. When designing your survey, be your own most severe critic. Every survey has flaws. Be objective of and mindful of your own survey's flaws, so you can avoid being ambushed.

Before getting into specific flaws, it's important to understand two crucially important aspects of survey research - validity and reliability. Validity refers to the survey's ability to assess those constructs that are relevant to the case; reliability reflects the survey's ability to measure the same constructs consistently when given to other samples in other venues.

So, while working with your survey expert or working to discredit an adversary's survey expert, be mindful of the following 10 flaws that can ruin a survey and render it useless.

FLAW# 1 - SELECTING THE WRONG TARGET MARKET
The purpose of the survey is to take a "frame," a small portion of the target universe, and draw conclusions about the entire universe from the knowledge you gain by surveying this frame. It is essential that the survey focus on the precise target market and not some related target market. If a target market is a dealer or distributor, don't focus on the customer. Respondents should be selected from among persons who are potentially involved in the dispute being litigated. In line with this flaw is the crucial need to recognize the "channels of trade." How does the product proceed from manufacturer, to distributor, to retailer, to end-user? Where is the product sold? How is it sold? How is it displayed?

FLAW #2 - INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS
Personnel working for research firms have varied educational and training backgrounds. Therefore, create detailed, yet easily understood WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS to interviewers and supervisors. Ideally, the research expert should deliver these instructions face-to-face to the research supervisor, venue supervisor, and individual researchers. If not face-to-face, then it should be done via conference call. The survey expert should be assured in his/her mind that the instructions are understood. If any questions come up in the process of the research, the research expert should be available to answer them immediately. If it can be shown or proved that the research instructions are inadequate, this could seriously jeopardize the validity and reliability of the survey.

FLAW #3 - THE SCREENER QUESTIONNAIRE
It is important that the survey expert produce a WRITTEN SCREENER. This is a separate document used in the selection process of interview subjects. The screener should identify who is to be interviewed with respect to age, gender, and languages that are spoken and understood, as well as the subject's association with the products and/or services involved. Also in the SCREENER document should be questions geared to eliminate potential subjects. Such questions deal with whether the subject or family member works for an employer falling within the channels of trade, and whether the subject or a family member works for an advertising, marketing or marketing research firm, which also might be a point of bias. On the screener questionnaire should be information as to why potential responders were excluded.

It's important to understand that mall research generally involves an incentive. Most shopping center malls have a cadre of "regulars," people who often stop by the research center in an effort to earn a few extra dollars by participating in surveys. These are NOT the kinds of people to participate in legal research studies and should be excluded. Make sure they have not participated in another survey for three months or six months. If they are not excluded, it can do serious damage to the validity and reliability of the survey. Finally, it's important that interview subjects can see and hear. If a respondent regularly wears eyeglasses or contact lenses to see, make sure they are wearing them. The same goes for hearing aides.

FLAW #4 - THE QUESTIONNAIRE
There is no rule requiring a long or short questionnaire. What it takes to prove or disprove a hypothesis is sufficient, but there are some pitfalls:

* Avoid compound questions where similar variables are combined in the same question with words like AND, OR, NOR, etc. Ask two or more separate questions even at the risk of making the survey seem unduly long or cumbersome. * When a subject is asked a question, be sure to ask WHY if it is appropriate to ask WHY. * Continue to PROBE an answer until you have exhausted every possible reason.

FLAW #5 - FAILURE TO TEST THE QUESTIONNAIRE
In virtually every case, a questionnaire should be tested. The rationale is that by testing, the research expert can be assured the survey results will have validity and reliability. It is especially important to test longer and more complex questionnaires. It is also important, when possible, for the survey expert to observe the test. Based on the results of the test, the survey expert should be prepared to make changes in the survey as well as the screener and instructions documents. It is possible - usually in a short, uncomplicated survey - to roll the test results into the total findings of the survey. This occurs when the test shows that no changes or revisions are needed. Testing is an important survey protocol. Failure to test can subject the survey results to question.

FLAW #6 - NUMBERS OF INTERVIEWS AND VENUES; PERCENTAGES NEEDED FOR SIGNIFICANCE
If your survey doesn't have a minimum of 200 interviews and four venues, your results are going to be suspect. If your client can't spend what is necessary to do at least 200 interviews at four or more venues, don't bother to do the research. There is a strong probability that anything less than that will be disregarded by the court. There are no arbitrary numbers to prove significance, but generally a minimum of 20 percent is needed in likelihood of confusion cases and a minimum of 50 percent is needed in secondary meaning cases.

FLAW #7 - BEWARE OF ANCILLARY DATA
In addition to the key data that supports or refutes likelihood of confusion or secondary meaning, the survey is likely to produce other data that can be damaging or uncomplimentary to the client doing the research. This data is often produced through asking WHY and PROBING in the survey. This data needs to be reported. Everybody involved with the survey should be aware of this data, and the survey expert should offer reasons or opinions to explain these findings. An adversary can take this ancillary data and embarrass a client to the extent the client may decide not to make use of perfectly valid and reliable findings from the survey.

FLAW #8 - MULTIPLE EXPERTS
Often a plaintiff or defendant will retain more than one survey expert. If this is done, do not allow the experts to review each other's findings or opinions. In such cases, the adversary has the opportunity to play one expert off against another to the detriment of the client. In deposition or trial testimony, when one expert refutes the findings of another, everybody loses. Unfortunately, sometimes such contradictions are unavoidable. Opposing counsel can show the results of the other expert in deposition and ask for opinions on those findings. This can be embarrassing. Tread carefully with findings and opinions of different experts working the same side of the street. The best advice is not to use multiple experts offering opinions on the same areas.

FLAW #9 - ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT
The involvement of an attorney in the survey design will always be viewed with suspicion. While the expert develops the survey, the attorney is needed to review it to make sure factual accuracies have been addressed. The attorney can even suggest re-wording questions in an effort to better reflect the wishes of the client. The key is the intent and control of the survey. It's a fine line. The attorney knows what facts are needed to help him prove or disprove a complaint. The expert's role is to draft a survey that fulfills that intent. Problems arise when attorneys start drafting questionnaires independent of the expert, and the attorney produces the survey and tells the expert to administer it. If this comes out in testimony, the results of the survey would most likely be disregarded.

The same goes for the survey report. This should be the work product of the expert, and the expert will be responsible for defending it. The attorney may suggest changes in format, emphasis, order of presentation or non-material factors, but the attorney's material opinions should not find themselves in the report unless the expert is in agreement based on the findings of the study.

FLAW #10 - BEWARE OF BIAS
Throughout the process, the survey expert must be on guard against bias. It starts with the relationships with the researchers. Most litigation surveys should be "double blind," in that neither the individual researchers nor the subject should be aware of the purpose of the survey, what is attempted to be proved or disproved, or the name of the client. The questionnaire should be direct, clear and unambiguous. When products are displayed, the order of the products should be varied if possible. Locations of research venues should be selected as not to prejudice results. Mall intercept interviewers should be instructed to avoid bias in the selection of interview candidates in the mall. Every attempt throughout the planning and execution of the survey should be designed to eliminate bias. Obvious bias will jeopardize the value of the survey.

To contact this expert call the Legal Expert Network at 1-800-597-5371.

These are some of the keywords associated with this expert's work experience and/or field of study: Legal Expert Witnesses, Legal Experts, Consultants / Consulting, Forensic, Litigation, Arbitrations, Depositions, Trials, Mediations, Courts, Forensics, Criminal Cases, Civil Cases, Law Suits / Lawsuits, Testify, Testimony, Torts, Laws, Lawyers, Attorneys, Malpractice, Intellectual, Property, Properties, Surveys, Trademarks, Infringement, Likelihood Of Confusion, Secondary Meanings, Marketing, Trade Dress, Communications, IP / I.P. Surveys, Litigation Surveys, Survey Design, Survey Validity, Survey Reliability, Litigation Surveys, Double Blind, Locations Of Research Venues, Bias In The Planning And Execution Of A Survey, Sampling, Venues, Questionnaire, Testing, Target Market, Instructions To Interviewers / Researchers, Written Screener, Screener Questionnaire, Legal Research Studies, Survey Protocols, Interviews, Interviewing Subjects / Participants, Proving Significance, Percentages Needed, and Key Data That Supports Or Refutes Likelihood Of Confusion Or Secondary Meaning.

This expert will consult with attorneys / clients that are located in, or have legal and non-legal cases that are related to: AK (Alaska), AL (Alabama), AR (Arkansas), AZ (Arizona), CA (California), CO (Colorado), CT (Connecticut), DC (District of Columbia), DE (Delaware), FL (Florida), GA (Georgia), HI (Hawaii), IA (Iowa), ID (Idaho), IL (Illinois), IN (Indiana), KS (Kansas), KY (Kentucky), LA (Louisiana), MA (Massachusetts), MD (Maryland), ME (Maine), MI (Michigan), MN (Minnesota), MO (Missouri), MS (Mississippi), MT (Montana), NC (North Carolina), ND (North Dakota), NE (Nebraska), NH (New Hampshire), NJ (New Jersey), NM (New Mexico), NV (Nevada), NY (New York), OH (Ohio), OK (Oklahoma), OR (Oregon), PA (Pennsylvania), PR (Puerto Rico), RI (Rhode Island), SC (South Carolina), SD (South Dakota), TN (Tennessee), TX (Texas), UT (Utah), VA (Virginia), VT (Vermont), WA (Washington), WI (Wisconsin), WV (West Virginia), WY (Wyoming), Native American Indian Reservations, East Coast states, New England states, the North or Northern states, the South or Southern states, Eastern states, Western states, West Coast states, Mid-Atlantic states (Midatlantic), Mid-West states (Midwestern states), North-East states (Northeastern states), North-West (Northwestern states), Great Plains states, South-East (Southeastern states), and South-West (Southwestern states). [This includes the Upper & Lower sections of the states and regions above]. Furthermore, this expert can assist those attorneys and clients who specifically need an expert in a particular city such as: Akron, Albuquerque, Anaheim, Angeles, Arlington, Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Charlotte, Cherry Hill, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Diego, District of Columbia, El Paso, El Paso, Fort Wayne, Fort Worth, Francisco, Fresno, Greensboro, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Jersey City, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Lexington, Long Beach, Long Island, Los Angeles, Louisville, Madison, Manhattan, Memphis, Mesa, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Montgomery, Nashville, New, New Orleans, New York City, Newark, Norfolk, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Queens, Raleigh, Sacramento, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Scottsdale, Seattle, Spokane, St. Louis, Staten Island, Tampa, Tucson, Tulsa, Vegas, Virginia Beach, Washington DC, Wichita, York, as well as other cities. In addition to consulting with attorneys / clients in the U.S., Legal Expert Network’s experts can also review legal cases (or non-legal cases) that are located in, or related to, areas outside the United States such as: Canada & Canadian issues, Mexico & Mexican issues, Africa & African issues, Asia & Asian issues, Australia & Australian issues, East Asia & East-Asian issues, Europe & European issues (from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western parts of Europe), Middle East & Middle-Eastern issues, Arab & Muslim issues, Turkey & Turkish issues, Israel & Israeli issues, North America & North American issues, Central America & Central American issues, South America & South American issues, South Asia & South Asian issues, India & Indian issues, South East Asian & South-East Asian issues, Taiwan & Taiwanese issues, China & Chinese issues, Singapore & Singaporean issues, Indonesia & Indonesian issues, Japan & Japanese issues, Korea & Korean issues, Russia & Russian issues (including former Soviet republics), and E.U. & European Union issues.

To contact this expert call the Legal Expert Network at 1-800-597-5371.