Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court unanimously held 3/4/03 that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), requires the owner of a famous mark to show actual dilution of his mark – not merely a likelihood of dilution – in order to obtain injunctive relief against another person’s commercial use of a mark or trade name. The Court reasoned that the statutory language requires this result by making injunctive relief available if the other person’s use of a mark “causes dilution of the distinctive quality” of the famous mark. The Court also provided limited clarification of the types of evidence that can prove actual dilution, which the statute defines as a reduction in “the capacity of the famous mark to identify or distinguish goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Proof of the consequences of dilution (such as loss of sales or profits) is not necessary. On the other hand, “at least where the marks at issue are not identical, the mere fact that consumers mentally associate the junior user’s mark with a famous mark is not sufficient.” Consumer surveys or other direct evidence of dilution may be necessary, but not if circumstantial evidence proves dilution, as when junior and senior marks are identical. This decision is important to any business that owns a famous mark or uses a mark or trade name that is similar to a senior, famous mark.