This article assesses the impact of the Supreme Court decision Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc. on methods of proving trademark dilution in federal court. It also examines federal court decisions that have interpreted Moseley's rulings on trademark dilution. The article concludes that brand owners are most successful in federal court when the challenged junior user's brand is identical to the senior user's brand. In light of results that indicate that consumer surveys play a minimal role in post-Moseley cases and are susceptible to rejection by courts, this article suggests alternative survey approaches that could better satisfy the rigorous requirements of any foreseeable statutory regime.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bell v. Starbucks U.S. Brands Corp. (2005), 389 F.Supp. 2d 766 (S.D. Tex.).
2.
CioffiEric R. (2004), “A Friend of the Court,”Risk Management, 51 (8), 44.
3.
DeenRebecca E., IgnagniJoseph, and MeernikJames (2005), “Individual Justices and the Solicitor General: The Amicus Curiae Cases, 1953-2000,”Judicature, 89 (September-October), 68–77.
4.
DiamondShari (2000), “Reference Guide on Survey Research,” in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Law Center.
5.
EdwardsG. Kip, JamesM. Amend, DixonTerence, FlohrSusan, SiegrunD. Kane, PaulC. Llewellyn (2004), “Proof of Dilution in the United States,” (accessed February 6, 2007), [available at http://www.inta.org/membersonly/downloads/ref_proof.pdf].
6.
FTDA (1995), Public Law 104-98.
7.
Gateway Inc. v. Companion Products Inc. (2003), 68 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1407 (D.S.D.), affirmed, 384 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2004).
8.
GerlaHarry S. (1986), “Discounters and the Antitrust Laws: Faces Sometimes Should Make Cases,”Journal of Corporation Law, 12 (Fall), 1–35.
9.
HendersonGeraldine R., IacobucciDawn, and BobbyJ. Calder (1998), “Brand Diagnostics: Mapping Branding Effects Using Consumer Associative Networks,”European Journal of Operational Research, 111 (2), 306–327.
10.
HoefflerSteve, and KellerKevin Lane (2003), “The Marketing Advantages of Strong Brands,”Journal of Brand Management, 10 (6), 421–45.
11.
JacobyJacob (1985), “Survey and Field Experimental Evidence,” in The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, SaulM. Kassin, and WrightsmanL., eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 175–200.
12.
JacobyJacob (2001), “The Psychological Foundations of Trademark Law: Secondary Meaning, Genericism, Fame, Confusion and Dilution,”The Trademark Reporter, 91 (5), 1013–1071.
13.
JacobyJacob (2002), “Experimental Design and the Selection of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Surveys,”The Trademark Reporter, 92 (July-August), 890–956.
14.
JacobyJacob (2003), “Dilution in Light of Victoria's Secret: The Psychology, Varieties, and Measurement of Trademark Dilution,” New York University Center for Law & Business Working Paper Series CLB-03-020, (November 5), (accessed February 6, 2007), [available at http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/emplibrary/03-020.pdf].
15.
KapfererJean-Noël (1995), “Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of a Legal Concept,”Psychology and Marketing, 12 (6), 551–68.
16.
Kinetic Concepts Inc. v. Bluesky Medical Group (2005), 2005 WL 3068223 (W.D. Tex.).
17.
LeeThomas R. (2004), “Demystifying Dilution,”Boston University Law Review, 84 (October), 859–44.
18.
LevineJason K. (2006), “Contesting the Incontestable: Reforming Trademark's Descriptive Mark Protection Scheme,”Gonzaga Law Review, 41 (1), 29–80.
19.
Library of Congress (2006), “To Amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with Respect to Dilution by Blurring or Tarnishment,” H. R. 683, Thomas Bill Database, (accessed February 6, 2007), [available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00683:].
20.
Long Tai Shing Co. Ltd v. Koch + Lowy (1991), 1991 WL 170734 (S.D.N.Y).
21.
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (2006), 2006 WL 3182468 (E.D. Va.).
22.
Malletier v. Dooney and Bourke Inc. (2004), 340 F.Supp. 2d 415 (S.D.N.Y.).
23.
Mastercard International Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Committee Inc. (2004), 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y.).
24.
McCarthyJ.T. (2005), McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 24:94, 4th ed. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan.
25.
MorrinMaureen, and JacobyJacob (2000), “Trademark Dilution: Empirical Measures for an Elusive Concept,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (Fall), 265–76.
26.
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc. (2003), 537 U.S. 418.
27.
Nabisco Inc. v. PF Brands Inc. (1999), 191 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.).
28.
Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court (2002), WL 31643067, for Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue (2003), 537 U.S. 418 (U.S.).
29.
PetersonRobert A., KarenH. Smith, and PhilipC. Zerrillo (1999), “Trademark Dilution and the Practice of Marketing,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 255–68.
30.
Pfizer Inc. v. Y2K Shipping & Trading Inc. (2004), 2004 WL 896952 (E.D.N.Y.).
31.
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp. (2004), 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.).
32.
PulligChris, CarolynJ. Simmons, and RichardG. Netemeyer (2006), “Brand Dilution: When Do New Brands Hurt Existing Brands?”Journal of Marketing, 70 (April), 52–66.
33.
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Development (1999), 170 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 923.
34.
SamuelsJeffrey M., and LindaB. Samuels (1996), “Famous Marks Now Federally Protected Against Dilution,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Fall), 307–310.
35.
SimonsonAlexander (1993), “How and When Do Trademarks Dilute: A Behavioral Framework to Judge ‘Likelihood’ of Dilution,”The Trademark Reporter, 83 (2), 149–74.
36.
SmithLamar (2005), “Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005: Hearing on H.R. 683 Before the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Comm. on the Judiciary,” 109th Cong. 2 (opening statement of Rep. Lamar Smith).
37.
GeneralSolicitor (2003), “Brief of Amicus Curiae of the Solicitor General of the United States,” 2002 WL 1378840, for Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue (2003), 537 U.S. 418 (U.S.).
38.
TDRA (2006), Public Law 109-312.
39.
Ty Inc. v. Perryman (2002), 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir.).
40.
W (2003), “The Month in Fashion: Court Briefs,” (May), 44.
41.
Wham-O Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (2003), 286 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (N.D. Cal.).
