05 Mar 2003, 12:00 am
In its 9-0 decision on the five-year-old dispute, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires evidence that a competitor caused actual harm by using a "sound-alike" or "knockoff name." The mere likelihood of economic harm if the shop kept its name was deemed insufficient.
The sex toy and adult video shop of Victor and Cathy Moseley was originally called "Victor's Secret". When the 750-store lingerie chain threatened to sue, the Moseley's changed their sign to read "Victor's Little Secret". But this was not enough to satisfy Victoria's Secret and a lawsuit was filed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that use of the name "neither confused any customers or potential customers, nor was likely to do so."
The Act that was the subject of this case is often used in US domain name disputes. CNet News.com quotes Paul Levy, a lawyer with the group Public Citizen, who observes that the ruling emphasises that infringement is about the interests of consumers, not just protection of companies. Accordingly, argues Levy, the rights to use domain names that incorporate the trade marks of third parties could be extended by yesterday's ruling.
The court's judgment can be downloaded as a 21-page PDF from:
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1015.pdf