Opinion ID: 425940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trademark Dilution and Injury to Property Rights

Text: 37 Because the District Court and the parties have treated these subjects under the same standard, we will consider them together. Mass.Gen.Laws c. 110B, Sec. 12 provides: 38 Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under this chapter, or a mark valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. 39 As we held in Pignons, to obtain relief under this statute, the plaintiff must show (1) that its mark is distinctive, and (2) that the defendant's use of a similar mark has created the likelihood of dilution. Pignons, 657 F.2d at 493-94. We will assume, without deciding, that Astra's mark is distinctive and proceed to consider the likelihood of dilution. In order to raise a fact issue on likelihood of dilution, Astra must produce sufficient evidence to support a finding of either (a) injury to the value of the mark caused by actual or potential customer confusion, (b) injury resulting from use of the mark in a way that detracts from, draws on, or otherwise appropriates the goodwill and reputation associated with plaintiff's mark, or (3) diminution in the uniqueness and individuality of plaintiff's mark. We have already determined that the evidence does not raise a fact issue as to customer confusion, which eliminates (a). 40 In regard to appropriating another's goodwill, the Pignons Court noted that the use of a uniquely identifying tradename can be an adequate remedy for dilution. Pignons, 657 F.2d at 495. The Beckman name is printed in full view on its analyzers, and the full name of the analyzer is printed under the ASTRA mark. In addition, as pointed out above, during the long hours of sales negotiation and buyer education involved in the purchase of a Beckman analyzer it will be made abundantly clear that Beckman, not Astra, is the source of the product. This, in conjunction with the extremely discriminating nature of those who purchase the product, makes the appropriation of Astra's goodwill and reputation by Beckman a virtual impossibility. 41 Finally, Astra argues that even though there are over 100 registrations of the mark ASTRA, its mark is unique and individual in the medical field and this uniqueness will suffer from Beckman's use of the mark. It contends that the other registrations have not already diluted its mark because they are in unrelated fields. 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. If the other registrations and uses of the ASTRA mark have not already diminished the uniqueness of Astra's mark, Beckman's use of it on its analyzer will not diminish it, either. Therefore, we hold that no genuine issue of material fact has been raised relating to trademark dilution. 42 In conclusion, after carefully considering the briefs, the oral arguments and all of the parties' contentions, we hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact that would warrant reversal of the District Court's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 43 Affirmed.