#11 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[mab9178]

Hi,

I read all of the explanations including the students', and I am still having had time equating trademark owners to manufacturers, or that manufacturers are one type of trademark owners.

Would someone please invoke the statements/limes that allow for this relationship between trademark owners and manufacturers to be deduced, but more importantly, please, interpret these lines in palpable terms to establish this purported connection between trademark owners and manufacturers?

One more thing, please, lines 5 through 10 in the first paragraph are invoked as part of the reasoning for equating manufacturers to or rendering them one type of trademark owners. However, the way I interpreted these (and please tell me how I am wrong in my reading of these lines, because I strongly sense that I am but need your expertise to see how) is that the manufactured-authorized distributors are the manufacturers.

This interpretation is consistent with the key answer by the administrator: "Those who need trademark protection are referred to as “trademark owners” by the author (and in previous question), but they are identified as “manufacturers” by implication on line 7 of the passage, verifying (B) as the correct answer choice."

However, if, per line 7, per the key answer, " [g]rey marketing...occurs when manufactured-authorized distributers sell to unauthorized distributors who then sell the good to consumers...," well then why should they (i.e. the manufacturers deserve protection???? They are inflicting the damage on themselves by selling to unauthorized distributors.

In other words, the manufactured-authorized distributors or the manufacturers, per the key answer, should not be selling to unauthorized distributors! And the fact that they are, makes them unlikely to be the trademark owners.

But then, this get worse from here, when we add paragraph three to the mix, it becomes counterintuitive to equate trademark owners to manufacturers, because it does not make sense for the manufacturers to be a kind of trademark owners but sell to unauthorized distributors per line 7 thereby entering the grey market, and then turn around and complain about the goodwill being jeopardized by the grey market which they brought upon themselves by selling to unauthorized distributors! But they ought to be protected!!!!

I have put a lot of thought into this question; and clearly, I missing something!

Please help

Thank you
Mazen

[mab9178]

On more question in connection to my previous post, is defining trademark owners as manufacturers established in this passage, or is it supposed to be common knowledge in the English-speaking world?

The google dictionary is not so precise, but then again it could common in the daily usage among native American speakers but not formalized in dictionaries.

I am asking because I read explanations from other prep-courses, but they never take any pains in making the connection as if "it goes without saying" that trademark owners and manufacturers are one and the same!

On this question, I ended up eliminating all of the answer-choices!

Thank you

[mab9178]

I took some time to distance myself from my initial understanding, reread the passage, and hopefully correctly figured out how manufacturers can be (or are) trademark owners, and hence B is the correct answer. However, I am not confident in my analysis because I rely in part on lines 19 through 21 which are part of the explanations as to why B is the correct answer.

Please tell me if my analysis is correct?

Lines 19 through 21 are critical to tying manufacturers to trademark owners because of the word "produce" which in context refers to what "manufacturers often do."

"To produce" could mean "to create," and is a derivative of the word "product"; and a trademark owner refers to the entity that created an innovated product. So now, manufacturers can be the trademark owners. (Yes, at this point, I am still having hard time equating them, or inferring that in the context of the passage, all manufacturers are trademark owners, even though all trademark owners are not necessarily manufacturers.)

When we add the example in the first passage (lines 10 through 15) to lines 19 through 21, we can equate some manufacturers to trademark owners.

To my mind, the example in lines 10 through 15, on its own, does not so much tie manufacturers to trade mark owners, but rather separate manufacturers from distributors (or "dealers"). In other words, if we do not want to assume that manufacturers are trademark owners based on this example alone, then this example establishes at least three different entities, the first being the trademark owners under which the manufacturers immediately follow who then sell to distributors or the third layer.

But since, per lines 19 through 20, "manufacturers often produce," it is not unreasonable to discern a scenario under which the manufacturers are the trademark owners, because the latter are defined as such by virtue of their production, and the former, according to the passage, "often produces and sell products."

Also, manufacturers are further distinguished from distributors/dealers because according to lines 19 through 21, the products that they - the manufacturers - produce, they sell to the authorized dealers. So when these authorized distributors turn around and sell to unauthorized ones, hence the channel flow diversion," (and they can because they purchased at a quantity-discounted price),the manufactures cannot be blamed for what authorized dealers did, they are a separate entity; in fact, they are sometimes the trademark owners!

Now, answer-choice B makes sense, because the manufacturers who are sometimes trademark owners, per line 19 through 20, are being hurt by giving discounts, because even though they are giving discounts to authorized dealers or distributors, the distributors are being driven by the quantity discounts to buy more than what they would under non-discounted prices to sell to unauthorized dealers thereby entering the grey market and jeopardizing the goodwill!

Am I correct?

Thank you

[mab9178]

I meant to say, line 19 through 21 were NOT part of any of the explanations I read on three different prep-courses explanations for this question, which makes me highly uncomfortable with my analysis; hence my asking PowerScore experts ton read my analysis and tell me if it is wrong, please.

Mazen

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Mazen,

"Manufacturer-authorized distributors" are not manufacturers themselves---they are the distributors that the manufacturers authorize to distribute the goods. Thus there are the manufacturers, who must be trademark owners if they are able to authorize the distribution and the distributors. The manufacturers then are not the ones behaving badly--it's the authorized distributors that divert the goods into the gray market by selling them to unauthorized distributors. So the authorized distributors are not the trademark owners, but the manufacturers are.

Manufacturers can be trademark owners, but don't have to be in English. It's the language in the first paragraph that indicates that the manufacturers can be the trademark owners here. We don't need any outside information. I think that you can use lines 19-21 in your support of that idea as well. It's another example of the text using manufacturers as trademark owners.

Good work getting to the solution!