Well no. You're right that being clear to avoid confusion is a good preventative measure, but you're wrong that intent to defraud is required. It's enough that

Well no. You're right that being clear to avoid confusion is a good preventative measure, but you're wrong that intent to defraud is required. It's enough that the public is (or is likely to be) confused. See Reckitt v Borden (1990) judgement referring to the three-part test for claims of passing off (my emphasis): "Second, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff"