![]() The Trademark Dilution Act provides that "the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled. That new section is codified at 15 U.S.C. ![]() § 1125, by adding a new § 43(c) to provide a cause of action for dilution of "famous" marks. 985, which amended § 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. The discussion of this subject begins with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub.L. Vuitton also appeals the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction on its Federal Trademark Dilution Act claim (Trademark Dilution Act or Act), 15 U.S.C."A district court's findings with regard to each individual factor are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, but the ultimate issue of the likelihood of confusion is reviewed de novo." Streetwise Maps, Inc. 1961), and consider: (1) the strength of the mark, (2) the similarity of the two marks, (3) the proximity of the products, (4) actual confusion, (5) the likelihood of plaintiff's bridging the gap, (6) defendant's good faith in adopting its mark, (7) the quality of defendant's products, and (8) the sophistication of the consumers. In analyzing this second prong of the test for trademark infringement, courts apply the non-exclusive multi-factor test developed by Judge Friendly in Polaroid Corp. ![]() We turn next to the question of likelihood of confusion. ![]() On appeal, Vuitton contends the district court blurred Vuitton's distinctive trademark by reducing it to an undefined and unprotectable "look," and also focused improperly on a side-by-side comparison to assess likelihood of confusion. The central consideration in assessing a mark's protectability, namely its degree of distinctiveness, is also a factor in determining likelihood of confusion. First, we look to see whether plaintiff's mark merits protection, and second, whether defendant's use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |