Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Courts' View of the State of Dilution in the States
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.
Victoria's Secret questioned whether dilution by tarnishment “is actually embraced by the statutory text” of the FTDA. Victoria's Secret, 537 U.S. at 432. Some state dilution laws explicitly permit causes of action for tarnishment and injury to business reputation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.