 |
Supremes Rule Against Victoria's Secret in Trademark Case |
|
 |
 |
Posted by Ren Bucholz on Tuesday, March 04 @ 14:08:50 EST
|
|
|
 |
 |
Don't worry, we'll be having a witty headline contest after lunch. Until then, here's what James Tyre has to say:
"Today, in Moseley v. Secret Catalogue, Inc. (more commonly known as Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's Secret), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a summary judgment in favor of the more famous catalog folks. Though there was no dispute that Victoria's Secret is a famous mark, as defined by statute, the Court was unimpressed with VS' failure to provide actual evidence of dilution of the mark."
Dilution is tough to prove, but the Court said:
"Whatever difficulties of proof may be entailed, they are not an acceptable reason for dispensing with proof of an essential element of a statutory violation. The evidence in the present record is not sufficient to support the summary judgment on the dilution count."
This is a terrific decision for those who disagree with the trademark-as-cudgel school of intellectual property.
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Supremes Rule Against Victoria's Secret in Trademark Case (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 04 @ 16:17:10 EST | Does the law offer no protection until after an irreparable harm (dilution) is endured.
That seems less than fair.
Mike |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|