Document: 537 U.S. 418 MOSELEY ET AL., DBA VICTOR'S LITTLE SECRETv.V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC., AL. No. 01-1015. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 12, 2002. Decided March 4, 2003. An army colonel sent a copy an advertisement for petitioners' retail store, "Victor's Secret," to respondents, affiliated corporations that own the VICTORIA'S trademarks, because he saw it as attempt use reputable trademark promote unwholesome, tawdry merchandise. Respondents asked petitioners discontinue using name, but responded by changing store's name Little Secret." then filed suit, alleging, inter alia, "the dilution famous marks" under Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). This 1995 amendment 1946 describes factors determine whether mark is "distinctive and famous," 15 U. S. C. § 1125(c)(1), defines "dilution" lessening capacity identify distinguish goods or services," 1127. To support their claims conduct was likely "blur erode" trademark's distinctiveness "tarnish" its reputation, respondents presented affidavit from marketing expert who explained value respondents' expressed no opinion concerning impact Secret" on value. The District granted summary judgment FTDA claim, Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding "distinctive" evidence established even though actual harm had been proved. It also rejected Fourth Circuit's conclusion "requires proof (1) defendant has [used] junior sufficiently similar evoke in ... consumers mental association two (2) caused (3) economic mark's former selling power advertising agent Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. Travel Dev., 170 F. 3d 449, 461. Held: 1. requires dilution. Pp. 428-434. (a) Unlike traditional infringement law, prohibitions against are not product common-law development, motivated interest protecting consumers. approximately 25 state laws predating refer both injury business reputation (tarnishment) distinctive quality trade (blurring). FTDA's legislative history mentions statute's purpose protect trademarks subsequent uses blur tarnish disparage it, absent likelihood confusion. 428-431. (b) Respondents' unquestionably valuable, have challenged "famous." Nor do they contend protection confined identical marks statute should be construed more narrowly case such this. They contend, however, harm, rather than mere "likelihood" harm. contrast between statutes federal sheds light this precise question. repeatedly completed provides relief if another's commercial "causes [mark's] quality," 1125(c)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, unambiguously showing. confirmed definition itself, That does mean consequences dilution, loss sales profits, must disagrees with Bros. decision extent suggests otherwise, agrees court's that, at least where issue identical, fact mentally associate user's sufficient establish actionable Such will necessarily reduce owner's goods, requirement. 432-434. 2. insufficient count. There complete absence any services sold Victoria's Secret stores advertised catalogs. officer ad directed his offense entirely petitioners, respondents. And said nothing about strength mark. Any difficulties may entailed demonstrating acceptable reason dispensing essential element statutory violation. P. 434. 259 464, reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered unanimous respect Parts I, II, IV, Part III, which REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 435. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. 2 James R. Higgins, Jr., argued cause petitioners. With him briefs Scot A. Duvall. 3 Walter Dellinger brief Jonathan D. Hacker. 4 Deputy Solicitor General Wallace States amicus curiae. were Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Irving L. Gornstein, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Mark Davies, John M. Whealan, Nancy Slutter, Cynthia Lynch, Hughes.* 5 JUSTICE STEVENS Court.† 6 In Congress amended 43 1946, 1125, provide remedy "dilution marks." 109 Stat. 985-986. amendment, known (FTDA), term services."1 question we certiorari decide objective (as opposed presumption arising subjective "likelihood dilution" standard) requisite FTDA. 7 * Petitioners, Victor Cathy Moseley, operate store named strip mall Elizabethtown, Kentucky. employees. 8 over 750 stores, Louisville, Kentucky, short drive Elizabethtown. 1998 spent $55 million brand— one moderately priced, high quality, attractively designed lingerie setting look like wom[a]n's bedroom." App. 167, 170. distribute 400 copies catalog each year, including 39,000 exceeded $1.5 billion. 9 February 1998, edition weekly publication distributed residents military installation Fort Knox, "GRAND OPENING Just time Valentine's Day!" "VICTOR'S SECRET" nearby featured "Intimate Lingerie every woman"; "Romantic Lighting"; "Lycra Dresses"; "Pagers"; "Adult Novelties/ Gifts." Id., 209. colonel, offended what perceived company's sale "unwholesome, merchandise," 210. Their counsel wrote stating choice confusion well-known and, addition, "dilute distinctiveness" 190-191. requested immediate discontinuance "and variations thereof." Ibid. response, changed Because change did satisfy respondents,2 promptly action Court. 10 complaint contained four separate claims: alleging "likely and/or mistake violation 1114(1)"; unfair competition misrepresentation 1125(a); "federal FTDA; (4) common law 15, 20-23. count, alleged erode "tarnish reputation" trademark. 11 After discovery parties cross-motions judgment. record uncontradicted affidavits deposition testimony describing vast size business, descriptions items respective parties' stores. sell "complete line lingerie" related items, bears label tag.3 Petitioners wide variety adult videos, "adult novelties," lingerie.4 Moseley stated women's represented only five percent sales. 131. motion judgment, submitted enormous value" 195-205. Neither he, nor other witness, impact, any, 12 Finding marks, concluded "no exists matter law" entered claims. Civ. Action 3:98CV-395-S (WD Ky., Feb. 9, 2000), Pet. Cert. 28a, 37a. court ruled 13 Noting challenge Secret's claim "famous," diluted Reasoning premise "corrodes" either "`blurring identification damaging positive associations attached it,'" first found "that Defendants' dilutes Plaintiffs' tarnishing effect upon mark." 38a-39a (quoting Ameritech, American Info. Technologies Corp., 811 2d 960, 965 (CA6 1987)). therefore enjoined "from `Victor's Secret' basis causes 38a-39a. not, find "blurring" occurred. 14 Appeals affirmed. 464 (2001). decided shortly after entry Court's case, adopted standards determining enunciated Second Nabisco, PF Brands, Inc., 191 208 (1999). See Kellogg Co. Exxon 209 562 2000). order apply those standards, necessary discuss issues specifically addressed—whether "distinctive,"5 could before actually occurred.6 issue, argument "secret" ordinary word used hundreds concerns. entire "arbitrary fanciful" deserving level protection. 3d, 470.7 On second relied distinction suggested sentence House Report: "Confusion leads injury, while infection, allowed spread, inevitably destroy H. Rep. 104-374, (1995). statement, coupled difficulty proving lent ultimate "dilution." 475-477. sum, held: "While consumer go Moseleys' expecting famed Miracle Bra, hear automatically think link adult-toy, gag gift, shop. This, then, classic instance (associating sex toys lewd coffee mugs) blurring (linking chain single, unauthorized establishment). Given conclusion, follows would prevail analysis, without exhaustive consideration all ten Nabisco factors." 477.8 16 reaching expressly holding Development, 449 involved Utah's license plates phrase "greatest snow earth" causing show earth," made relevant universe services." 461 Circuits differing views "actual harm" resolve conflict. 535 985 (2002). II 17 Traditional part broader competition, see Hanover Star Milling Metcalf, 240 403, 413 (1916), sources English largely codified (Lanham Act). B. Pattishall, Hilliard, Welch, Trademarks Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2000) ("The took [trademark competition] England own"). broadly prohibits names, dress source service. §§ 1114, 1125(a)(1)(A). Infringement protects being misled infringing producers practices "imitating competitor." Qualitex Jacobson Products Co., 514 159, 163-164 18 appeal adverse counts 1, 2, complaint, assumption neither confused potential consumers, so. Moreover, disposition makes appropriate there significant adversaries case. defense count complaint. 19 seminal discussion Frank Schechter's 1927 review article concluding preservation uniqueness constitute rational protection." Rational Basis Protection, 40 Harv. Rev. 813, 831. Schechter supported referring German owner "Odol" mouthwash various noncompeting steel products.9 indeed principal focus article, arbitrary "added withdrawn human vocabulary" 829.10 20 Some years later Massachusetts enacted provided: 21 "Likelihood trade-mark shall ground injunctive cases notwithstanding 1947 Mass. Acts 300, ch. 307. 22 Notably, statute, unlike prohibited "injury thus applied "tarnishment" "blurring." At passed decades 1995. Restatement (Third) 25, Statutory Note III 23 1988, when amendments Lanham Act, gave antidilution provision. During hearings 1988 amendments, objections provision based concern might expression protected First Amendment voiced deleted amendments. 100-1028 (1988). bill, 1295, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced 1995, ultimately FTDA, included exceptions avoid concerns: allowing "fair use" registered comparative promotion, noncommercial 1125(c)(4). 24 July 19, Subcommittee Courts Intellectual Property Judiciary Committee held 1-day hearing 1295. No opposition bill minor extended unregistered well subcommittee endorsed unanimously. committee's report "purpose 1295 confusion." As examples DUPONT shoes, BUICK aspirin, KODAK pianos legislation." 3. Senate 1513, December 29, same day voice vote hearings. explanation Senator Hatch intended "to it," referred Dupont Shoes, Buick Kodak piano examples, article. 141 Cong. Rec. 38559-38561 IV valuable qualifies "famous mark" within meaning statute. understand submission, Even lend some contention, surely compelled text. 26 rested "tarnished" mark, affirmance. disputed relevance tarnishment, Tr. Oral Arg. 5-7, presumably concept prominent litigation brought mentioned history. Whether embraced text, another matter. Indeed, statutes, trademark," refers latter, arguably supports narrower reading Klieger, Dilution: Whittling Away 58 Pitt. 789, 812-813, n. 132 (1997). 27 decide. For several provisions text quoted full supra, entitled person's quality" showing 28 fortified itself. provides: 29 "The `dilution' means services, regardless presence of— 30 "(1) parties, 31 "(2) confusion, mistake, deception." 32 initial reference "lessening capacity" deception" caveat confirms established. 33 Of course, language 460-465, disagree. We agree, facts demonstrate, owner, requirement drivers reminded circus plate greatest skiing sports, less strongly exclusively circus. "Blurring" consequence association. (Nor, matter, "tarnishing.") 34 establishes opening make "Victoria's shows form different impression wife daughter patronized. ad, conception Secret. His retained say 35 surveys expensive often unreliable, amici argue 1127, difficult obtain. be, direct can reliably proved through circumstantial evidence—the obvious senior identical. Whatever entailed, present reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 36 so ordered. Notes: Peter Jaszi Public Knowledge et al. curiae urging reversal. Briefs affirmance Bar Association Robert E. Hirshon, W. Sacoff, Uli Widmaier; Law Hudis, Amy Sullivan, Roger Parkhurst; Best Western International, Avraham Azrieli, Joel Nomkin, Charles Blanchard, Suzanne Scheiner; Intel Corp. Jerrold Ganzfried, I. Levy, Thomas Casagrande; Andrew Beckerman-Rodau Lemley, pro se; Owners Laurence Hefter, Elizabeth McGoogan, Ronald Myrick; International Theodore Davis, Marie V. Driscoll; Long, Jr. Malla Pollack, se, &#x2020; SCALIA joins "SEC. REMEDIES DILUTION FAMOUS MARKS "(a) REMEDIES.—Section (15 U.S.C. 1125) adding end following new subsection: "`(c)(1) entitled, subject principles equity terms deems reasonable, injunction commerce begins become obtain provided subsection. famous, consider as, limited to— "`(A) degree inherent acquired mark; "`(B) duration connection used; "`(C) publicity "`(D) geographical trading area "`(E) channels "`(F) recognition areas marks' person whom sought; "`(G) nature third parties; "`(H) 3, 1881, 20, 1905, register. "`(2) subsection, unless sought willfully If willful intent proven, remedies set forth sections 35(a) 36, discretion equity. "`(3) ownership valid registration register bar person, State seeks prevent label, advertisement. "`(4) section: Fair promotion competing Noncommercial All forms news reporting commentary.' "(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading title VIII striking `AND FALSE DESCRIPTIONS' inserting`, DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION.' 4. DEFINITION. "Section 45 1127) inserting paragraph defining deemed `abandoned' following: "`The "`(1) deception.'" advised proposal SECRETS," detailed information "would acceptable." 13-14. suit months request described follows: lingerie, undergarments nightwear, robes, caftans kimonos, slippers, sachets, bags, hanging candles, soaps, cosmetic brushes, atomizers, bath products fragrances."Id., 168. answer interrogatory, "sell novelty clocks, patches, temporary tattoos, stuffed animals, mugs, leather biker wallets, zippo lighters, diet formula, supplements, jigsaw puzzles, whyss, handcufs[sic], hosiery bubble machines, greeting cards, calendars, incense burners, car air fresheners, sunglasses, ball caps, jewelry, lava lamps, blacklights, fiber optic lights, rock roll prints, pagers, candy, video tapes, novelties, t-shirts, etc." 87. "It quite clear intends distinctiveness, addition fame, element. operative tort `the [junior] . caus[e] [senior] mark.' 1125(c)(1). distinctive."Nabisco, 208, 216 (CA2 1999). why believe need proved: "Relying recent Circuit, asserts `actual, consummated harm.' Division Cir. reject disagree interpretation positions `actual dilution.' Id. position courts infer `contextual (degree similarity, etc.),' instead rely revenues' `skillfully constructed survey.' 457, 464-65. strikes us unwarranted limitation methods proof." 223. "In example, although `secret' provoke intrinsic prurient interests, linked experience lingerie. `Secret' particularly descriptive bras hosiery. anything combination possessive `Victoria's' conjures thought underwear-except, context plaintiff's products. Hence, conclude `Victoria's ranks `arbitrary fanciful' Although district slightly test now circuit, undoubtedly reached result theNabisco test. Certainly, cannot erred preliminary met 470-471. previously noted "Second developed list has, fact, occurred, them `nonexclusive list' `develop gradually time' particular Those are: distinctiveness; similarity marks; `proximity bridging gap;' `interrelationship among proximity products;' `shared geographic limitations;' `sophistication consumers;' confusion; `adjectival referential use;' `harm user delay user;' `effect [the] senior's prior laxity mark.'"Id., 476 217-222). "held `Odol' non-competing was`gegen die guten Sitten,' pointing out public hears reads `Odol,' thinks complainant's mouth wash, designated assume good quality. Consequently, concludes court, complainant utmost seeing [verwässert]: lose everyone designation goods.'" Rev., 831-832. Schecter discussed length: rule arbitrary, coined fanciful names given much symbols, words phrases appear sound. tradenames `Blue Ribbon,' used, registration, kinds commodities sixty times; `Simplex' `Star,' far back 1898, nearly hundred `Anchor,' already fifty times 1898; `Bull Dog,' 1923; `Gold Medal,' sixty-five `3-in-1' `2-in-1,' seventy-nine `Nox-all,' `Universal,' thirty `Lily White' twenty times;—all these have, late date, very little mind, most suggest merit, prominence qualities general, service, emanates source. hand, `Rolls-Royce,' `Aunt Jemima's,' `Kodak,' `Mazda,' `Corona,' `Nujol,' Goose,' coined, added vocabulary owners, beginning, associated mind product, products, created consciousness symbol excellence question."Id., 828-829. concurring. few reviewed considering, 1125(c), I agree evidentiary required clarified remand. throughout litigation, ante, 425, 432, seems remaining considered inquiry, considerable attention given, my view, "capacity" When adopted, circumstances turn probable respect, imports into inquiry diminished suffice Capacity defined ability hold, receive, accommodate." Webster's Third New Dictionary 330 (1961); 396 (2d 1949) ("Power receiving, containing, absorbing"); Oxford 857 1989) ("Ability receive contain; power"); Heritage 275 absorb"). lessen give customers assurance satisfaction knowing purchased bearing elements Diminishment shown flowing adoption analysis authorization relief. 1125(c)(2). role "prevent future wrong, right yet violated." Swift States, 276 311, 326 (1928). Equity encourage injured assert rights promptly. A holder threatened diminishment serve forced wait until damage done eroded. tarnished affirmed blurring. 477 2001). foreclose remand tarnishment. observations, join

Category: 7