Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court holds that 'actual dilution' to mark needed to sustain claim
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in order to sustain an action under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, a plaintiff must show 'actual dilution' to its trademark, not the mere likelihood of harm. The Court noted that mere 'mental association' in the mind of consumers between two marks does not amount to dilution, but that trademark holders do not have to actually prove they actually lost sales or profit. Moseley v. Victoria Secret Catalogue Inc., No. 01-1015 (March 4, 2003).
A major lingerie retailer, Victoria's Secret, claimed an Elizabethtown, KY adult store named Victor's Little Secret violated the FTDA arguing that the name was likely to 'blur and erode the distinctiveness' of its own trademark, which is widely recognized from catalogs and stores.
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
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 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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?