Opinion ID: 151187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Missouri's Anti-Dilution Statute

Text: The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of SensoryEffects on Count Six of Sensient's complaint alleging trademark dilution under Missouri law. The statute provides for injunctive relief where there exists a [l]ikelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061(1). The gravamen of a dilution complaint is that the defendant's continuing use of a mark similar to the plaintiff's mark will inexorably have an adverse effect upon the value of the plaintiff's mark, and that the plaintiff's mark will eventually be deprived of all distinctiveness. Frosty Treats, Inc., 426 F.3d at 1011 (citation omitted). To prevail under the statute, Sensient must show its mark or trademark was valid at common law, that its mark is distinctive, and that defendants' use of its name created a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive quality of plaintiff's mark. Cmty. of Christ Copyright Corp. v. Devon Park Restoration, 683 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1017 (W.D.Mo.2010). The district court began its analysis by noting, as discussed above, Sensient is a fanciful mark. The court proceeded to consider evidence of third party usage of similar marks on similar goods. According to the court, SensoryEffects introduced evidence showing another competitor in the market does business under the name Sensus Flavors, while another corporation uses the name Symrise. The court concluded, while the Sensient mark is fanciful, these third party uses demonstrate the mark is relatively weak. The court determined Sensient failed to introduce evidence showing its mark is distinctive, and as a result the mark was not entitled to protection under the dilution statute. Sensient asserts it was not required to introduce evidence showing its mark was distinctive because its mark was already established as fanciful. Sensient points to its open and continuous use of the mark since 2000 on its business cards, advertising and marketing materials, and website. Sensient also contends the court erred because nothing in the statute or case law requires courts to consider third party usage as part of the dilution determination, especially where the mark at issue is fanciful. Even if this inquiry were required, Sensient argues, the court's finding its mark was relatively weak was not supported by the evidence in the record. As an initial matter, we acknowledge this case is distinguishable from Steak n Shake Co. v. Burger King Corp., 323 F.Supp.2d 983 (E.D.Mo.2004), which the district court cited in support for its holding. In Steak n Shake Co., the steakburger mark was a generic term not entitled to protection, in contrast to the Sensient mark, which the district court already determined was a strong mark, as we also concluded above. 323 F.Supp.2d at 994-95. Regardless of this distinction, Sensient is unable to prevail on its trademark dilution claim. Inherent in a dilution action under Missouri law is a showing of similarity between the marks, which results in the dilution. See Frosty Treats, Inc., 426 F.3d at 1011 (Plaintiffs' Missouri-law dilution claim fails because the marks and trade dress at issue are so dissimilar that it would be clearly erroneous to hold that there was a likelihood of dilution.). See also Luigino's, Inc., 170 F.3d at 832 (To support an action for dilution by blurring, the marks must at least be similar enough that a significant segment of the target group of customers sees the two marks as essentially the same.). As discussed above, the Sensient Flavors and SensoryEffects Flavor Systems marks are not sufficiently similar under the sight, sound, and meaning test. While the sight, sound, and meaning test determined similarity for purposes of assessing whether a likelihood of confusion existed, the same dissimilarity prevents a finding of dilution under Missouri law. See Luigino's, 170 F.3d at 832-33 (holding the marks were dissimilar under the sight, sound, and meaning test such that dilution did not occur because the customers did not see the marks as essentially the same); Astra Pharm. Prod., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1210 (1st Cir.1983) (We have already noted that, while the Beckman analyzer and Astra products may be in the same broad health care field, there is sufficient dissimilarity to prevent confusion. For the same reasons, there is sufficient dissimilarity to prevent dilution.). As a result, Sensient's dilution claim under Missouri law fails because the marks are not sufficiently similar, and therefore there is no likelihood of dilution between the marks. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.