Scholarlink

<p>This paper offers a response to the commentary by Andrzej Falkowski and Justyna Olszewska (2026) on our empirical study presented in the article “Spare Parts, Repairs, Trade Marks and Consumer Understanding” (IIC (2023), vol. 54, pp. 26–60). Our study examined how different forms of trade mark use in the online commercialization of non-original spare parts – under the EU repair clause framework – affect consumer evaluation and identification of commercial origin. It did not investigate brand equity, nor did it compare original parts with non-original components.</p><p> At the outset, we emphasize that the study was conducted exclusively for academic, non-commercial purposes and forms part of our broader research on the perception of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices. In contrast to Andrzej Falkowski – who acted as an expert witness on behalf of Audi AG in related court proceedings – we have no affiliation with any actors from the automotive sector.</p><p>In this response, we address several core misunderstandings underlying the commentary. First, we clarify that we have never claimed that the trade marks do not influence products’ evaluation in general; rather, we reported that, within the specific experimental conditions examined, quality assessments and purchase intentions did not substantially vary depending on the form of trade mark use in the commercialization of non-original spare parts.</p><p>Second, we explain that separate analyses for the small minority of participants who incorrectly identified AUDI as the manufacturer (as suggested by Falkowski and Olszewska) were not central to the study’s aims, which concerned permissible trade mark use and origin identification – not brand endorsement effects.</p><p>We also comment on the additional analyses conducted by the Falkowski and Olszewska based on our openly available dataset, noting both the generally positive evaluations of spare parts and concerns regarding selective result presentation and graphical scaling that may exaggerate perceived differences. Finally, we reiterate that our empirical study was methodologically sound and aligned with its stated objectives. It should be understood as a contribution to academic discourse on the legitimate use of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices, rather than as advocacy for any party or as evidentiary material in ongoing litigation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Reply to the Commentary by Andrzej Falkowski and Justyna Olszewska

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月26日

查看全文
  • Anna Tischner,
  • Katarzyna Stasiuk

摘要

This paper offers a response to the commentary by Andrzej Falkowski and Justyna Olszewska (2026) on our empirical study presented in the article “Spare Parts, Repairs, Trade Marks and Consumer Understanding” (IIC (2023), vol. 54, pp. 26–60). Our study examined how different forms of trade mark use in the online commercialization of non-original spare parts – under the EU repair clause framework – affect consumer evaluation and identification of commercial origin. It did not investigate brand equity, nor did it compare original parts with non-original components.

At the outset, we emphasize that the study was conducted exclusively for academic, non-commercial purposes and forms part of our broader research on the perception of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices. In contrast to Andrzej Falkowski – who acted as an expert witness on behalf of Audi AG in related court proceedings – we have no affiliation with any actors from the automotive sector.

In this response, we address several core misunderstandings underlying the commentary. First, we clarify that we have never claimed that the trade marks do not influence products’ evaluation in general; rather, we reported that, within the specific experimental conditions examined, quality assessments and purchase intentions did not substantially vary depending on the form of trade mark use in the commercialization of non-original spare parts.

Second, we explain that separate analyses for the small minority of participants who incorrectly identified AUDI as the manufacturer (as suggested by Falkowski and Olszewska) were not central to the study’s aims, which concerned permissible trade mark use and origin identification – not brand endorsement effects.

We also comment on the additional analyses conducted by the Falkowski and Olszewska based on our openly available dataset, noting both the generally positive evaluations of spare parts and concerns regarding selective result presentation and graphical scaling that may exaggerate perceived differences. Finally, we reiterate that our empirical study was methodologically sound and aligned with its stated objectives. It should be understood as a contribution to academic discourse on the legitimate use of trade marks in the context of circular economy practices, rather than as advocacy for any party or as evidentiary material in ongoing litigation.