Intellectual Property
Mar. 20, 2006
'Victoria's Secret' Didn't End Splits on Trademark Dilution
Focus Column - By Rachael G. Samberg - Three years ago, in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) ("Victoria's Secret"), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 requires holders of famous trademarks to demonstrate "actual"- rather than "likely"- dilution of their famous marks before they are entitled to injunctive relief against trademark dilution.
Focus Column
By Rachael G. Samberg
Three years ago, in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) ("Victoria's Secret"), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 requires holders of famous trademarks to demonstrate "actual"- rather than "likely"- dilution of their famous marks before they are entitled ...
By Rachael G. Samberg
Three years ago, in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) ("Victoria's Secret"), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 requires holders of famous trademarks to demonstrate "actual"- rather than "likely"- dilution of their famous marks before they are entitled ...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In