Opinion ID: 589967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the new york anti-dilution statute claim

Text: 85 Bristol also appeals from the refusal of the district court to enter an injunction against McNeil on the basis of New York's Anti-Dilution statute, New York Gen.Bus.Law § 368-d. That statute states: 86 Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark or trade name shall be a ground for injunctive relief in cases of infringement of a mark registered or not registered or in cases of unfair competition, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. 87 New York Gen.Bus.Law § 368-d. As the plain language of the statute indicates, relief is available under section 368-d even when there is no likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product. See Sally Gee, Inc. v. Myra Hogan, Inc., 699 F.2d 621, 624 (2d Cir.1983); Allied Maintenance v. Allied Mechanical Trades, 42 N.Y.2d 538, 545, 399 N.Y.S.2d 628, 632, 369 N.E.2d 1162, 1166 (1977). 88 The district court denied relief under section 368-d because Bristol and McNeil are direct competitors and the district court determined that section 368-d applied only to non-competing goods. Whether section 368-d applies to products in direct competition is a question that has split the district courts in this Circuit. See E.P. Lehmann Co. v. Polk's Modelcraft Hobbies, 770 F.Supp. 202, 206 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (collecting and discussing cases). New York courts have not directly addressed this issue. 89 We need not resolve this conflict over New York law because, even assuming arguendo that the statute applies to competitors, under the appropriate legal standard Bristol cannot prevail on its claim under section 368-d. [O]nly those trade names which are truly of distinctive quality or which have acquired a secondary meaning in the mind of the public should be entitled to protection under the anti-dilution statute. Allied Maintenance, 42 N.Y.2d at 546, 399 N.Y.S.2d at 633, 369 N.E.2d at 1166. In interpreting this New York statute, we have held that it protects only extremely strong marks. Sally Gee, Inc., 699 F.2d at 625. The PM designator appended to the analgesic trade name does not qualify as an extremely strong mark. Nor do the aspects of the Excedrin PM trade dress that are common to both products constitute extremely strong marks. Thus, Bristol is not entitled to protection under section 368-d.