Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 FEBRUARY 2009

Best Kept Secret: Are Dilution Claims Based On "Blurring" Still Viable?

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Nearly a decade after Victoria's Secret filed suit to enjoin the use of the name VICTOR'S LITTLE SECRET for an adult novelty store, on May 21, 2008 the U.S. District Court in Kentucky finally resolved the case in Victoria's Secret's favour.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Nearly a decade after Victoria's Secret filed suit to enjoin the use of the name VICTOR'S LITTLE SECRET for an adult novelty store, on May 21, 2008 the U.S. District Court in Kentucky finally resolved the case in Victoria's Secret's favour.1 Hardly anyone could have predicted when the case was originally filed in 1998 that it would provide the catalyst for overhauling federal dilution law. Now, after a controversial Supreme Court decision and the passage of a revised dilution statute, it remains to be seen whether US. dilution law has become any clearer. Preliminary indications are that most plaintiffs asserting dilution claims will continue to face an uphill battle for the foreseeable future.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from