The NYTimes reports that knockoffs are going down market:
After years of knocking off luxury products like $2,800 Louis Vuitton handbags, criminals are discovering there is money to be made in faking the more ordinary â€” like $295 Kooba bags and $140 Ugg boots. In California, the authorities recently seized a shipment of counterfeit Angel Soft toilet paper.
In some cases, fake products are being listed for more than the originals.Â That news supplies some helpful context for this photo, which a friend in Turkey snapped:
“Reverse” confusion, where a (more famous, junior) infringer leads the public to believe that it is the source of goods or services produced by a (less famous, but senior) mark owner, is a viable theory of trademark infringement.
If a faux product that incorporates a famous trademark makes the real thing seem *more* valuable, does the mark owner have a claim for “reverse” dilution?