Opinion ID: 768341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kellogg's Remaining Claims

Text: 82 In granting Exxon's motion for summary judgment, the district court, in a footnote, dismissed Kellogg's remaining claims as moot: 83 The dismissal of Kellogg's action renders moot the following pending motions: Exxon's renewed motion for partial summary judgment on Kellogg's state dilution claim; Exxon's motion for partial summary judgment on Kellogg's dilution by tarnishment claims; Exxon's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of bad faith; and Exxon's motion for summary judgment on Kellogg's federal dilution claim. 84 The short shrift given to Kellogg's dilution claims ignores the fact that dilution rests on legal grounds entirely distinct from the law governing infringement. In granting Exxon's motion for summary judgment, the district court held that the connection between the products offered by Kellogg and those offered by Exxon and the respective marketing channels for those products were too attenuated for the parties to be considered competitors. However, the Lanham Act, as amended by the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, states: 85 The term dilution means the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services, regardless of the presence or absence of -- (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added). 4 86 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). For a plaintiff to succeed on a federal claim of dilution (1) the senior mark must be famous; (2) it must be distinctive; (3) the junior use must be a commercial use in commerce; (4) it must begin after the senior mark has become famous; and (5) it must cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the senior mark. Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 215 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Syndicate Sales, Inc. v. Hampshire Paper Corp., 192 F.3d 633, 638-39 (7th Cir. Sept. 13, 1999); Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449, 452 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 286 (1999); I.P. Lund Trading v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 45-50 (1st Cir.1998); Panavision Int'l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998). 87 We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence, we also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper.