Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Victoria's Secret case raised the hurdle for plaintiffs claiming dilution under the Lanham Act, generally making it much harder to prevail in a federal dilution action. The Supreme Court followed the plain meaning of the statute in interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. '1125(c) [Sec. 43(c) of the Lanham Act] to require a showing of “actual dilution” in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter “Victoria's Secret“). The Supreme Court got to this position in part by contrasting 43(c) with the language of state dilution laws, which in many cases do not require actual dilution (and recognize tarnishment, besides). Some state laws can, in theory, help plaintiffs with a dilution claim. This article examines how this is actually playing out.
There are those who still question whether 43(c) has lost its bite, and cite the Victoria's Secret reference to the possibility of proof of actual dilution “through circumstantial evidence ' the obvious case is one where the junior and senior marks are identical.” (Victoria's Secret, 537 U.S. at 434). Sounds good. But at least two courts have viewed this statement as ambiguous. Judge Richard Posner, in Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc., 69 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1213, 1219 (7th Cir. 2003) said: “The Court did not explain and no one seems to know what that 'circumstantial evidence' might be.” The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the Supreme Court's statement does not mean that if the marks are identical, that in itself is the circumstantial evidence. Instead, the court interpreted the Victoria's Secret reference to “circumstantial evidence” to mean: Circumstantial evidence of actual dilution, as opposed to direct evidence, is sufficient when the marks are identical. Savin Corp. v. Savin Group, 68 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1893, 1904 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Since circumstantial evidence is often appropriate, with the question going to its weight, this is a puzzling interpretation. This is another reason the state law may be increasingly attractive to plaintiffs.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.