Opinion ID: 437290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: anti-dilution act.

Text: 13 The Illinois Anti-Dilution Act provides in pertinent part that 14 [e]very person ... adopting and using a mark [or] trade name, ... may proceed by suit, and the circuit court shall grant injunctions, to enjoin subsequent use by another of the same or any similar mark [or] trade name ... if there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark [or] trade name ... of the prior user notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. 15 Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 140 Sec. 22 (1981). Thus, an injunction must be granted if the prior user can show that the mark is distinctive and that the subsequent user's use dilutes that distinctiveness; 2 neither competition between the users nor confusion need be shown. Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, Inc., 319 F.2d 830, 836 (7th Cir.1963); Edgewater Beach Apartments Corp. v. Edgewater Beach Management Co., 12 Ill.App.3d 526, 299 N.E.2d 548, 554 (1973). 16
17 While some of the evidence the district court considered in evaluating Hyatt Hotels' Lanham Act claim is relevant to the dilution question, the district court did not address separately Hyatt Hotels' dilution claim. The court's focus was clearly on the lack of confusion, which is not essential to a dilution claim. In a claim under the Anti-Dilution Act, the relevant factors are, as stated, distinctiveness of the mark and whether the mark is being diluted. 3 We consider the evidence before this court to be more than sufficient to mandate a finding that Hyatt Hotels is likely to succeed on the merits. 18
19 Hyatt Legal Services points out that Hyatt is a personal name and argues that therefore it cannot be distinctive. Hyatt Legal Services also contends that because a number of other businesses in the United States use Hyatt in their names, the Hyatt mark is not distinctive. 20 The district court found the name Hyatt to be reasonably common. Even if this is so, 4 it does not preclude a finding that the mark Hyatt is distinctive. The fact that a mark is coined or invented may make distinctiveness easier to show. Polaroid, 319 F.2d at 837. Other factors are also important, however, including the length of time the mark has been used, the scope of advertising and promotions, the nature and extent of the business, and the scope of the first user's reputation. See id. at 832; Instrumentalist Co. v. Marine Corps League, 509 F.Supp. 323, 332 (N.D.Ill.1981). 21 In this case, Hyatt Hotels has been using its mark for some twenty-five years. It has been registered for thirteen years. Over the past several years, Hyatt Hotels has conducted an extensive advertising campaign designed to expand recognition of its trade name. That advertising in no way implies that Hyatt is a particular person's name; rather Hyatt is used as a trade name to indicate the source of the service. The hotel business is one in which travelers consider the name of a hotel to indicate its quality, cost, services, etc. Hyatt Hotels' reputation in its field is, as the district court found, excellent. Except for the appellee, the record shows no other national or regional business which uses the name Hyatt to identify its services. In these circumstances, we have no difficulty in concluding that Hyatt Hotels' trade name Hyatt is distinctive. 22
23 The second issue is whether Hyatt Legal Services' use of the mark Hyatt dilutes the mark. Important factors in this determination are the similarity between the marks used by the parties, and the extent of the marketing effort by the second user. Polaroid, 319 F.2d at 832; Instrumentalist, 509 F.Supp. at 323. 24 Hyatt Legal Services uses the same mark as Hyatt Hotels. It is not modified in any way to show that it is a personal name rather than a trademark, as would be the case if Joel Hyatt Legal Services or Hyatt, Hyatt, Willis & Brooks were used to identify the firm. As indicated, Hyatt Legal Services has extensively advertised in the past few years, spending millions of dollars. While it does not yet operate in every state or every major city, such a national operation is part of its expansion plans, and it presently has offices in nearly a third of the states. Hyatt Legal Services' use of the mark is far more extensive than was the use in Polaroid, where the defendant operated in only three states and spent only $1,000.00 on advertising annually. Polaroid, 319 F.2d at 832. We think it clear that Hyatt Hotels has shown a likelihood of success on the question whether Hyatt Legal Services' use dilutes the mark. 25
26 Hyatt Hotels argues that Hyatt Legal Services' use of its mark threaten[s] to unravel the result of more than twenty-five years of effort by [Hyatt Hotels] to establish the Hyatt mark. We note that it is the very nature of dilution to gnaw away insidiously at the value of a mark. See Polaroid, 319 F.2d at 836. Such an injury would be remarkably difficult to convert into damages. [T]here is no effective way to measure the loss of sales or potential growth--to ascertain the people who don't knock on the door or to identify the specific persons who do not [return] because of the existence of the infringer. Instrumentalist, 509 F.Supp. at 323. We conclude that the difficulty Hyatt Hotels would encounter in proving damages incurred because of Hyatt Legal Services' dilution of its mark and the nature of the injury direct a finding of irreparable injury. 27
28 Granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Wesley-Jessen Division v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 698 F.2d 862, 864 (7th Cir.1983). The public has an interest in the protection of trademarks and trade names. Further, the public interest in affordable legal services and accurate advertising of legal services will not be adversely affected by the injunction. 29
30 Hyatt Legal Services argues that a preliminary injunction will be costly and will result in the loss of the extensive name recognition it has attained over the past few years. 31 We recognize that a name change will cost Hyatt Legal Services money. Signs, stationery, and advertising will have to be changed. However, Mr. Hyatt conceded during the preliminary injunction hearing that television ads get stale and have to be changed frequently. Offices run out of stationery, which then has to be reordered. A name change need not add substantially to these costs. Further, we consider Hyatt Hotels' proof that Hyatt Legal Services is violating the Anti-Dilution Act to go substantially farther than showing a likelihood of success, and we may certainly take into account the strength of Hyatt Hotels' case in balancing the equities. Omega Satellite Products Co. v. City of Indianapolis, 694 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir.1982). Finally, it appears that Hyatt Hotels' rights to an undiluted trade name are being diminished every time a Hyatt Legal Services advertisement appears before the public. See Instrumentalist, 509 F.Supp. at 334. It would be difficult to cure this injury with money damages. We conclude that the harm caused Hyatt Hotels by denying the injunction would be more serious than the harm caused Hyatt Legal Services by granting the injunction. 32