Victor Moseley and Cathy Moseley, Dba Victor's Little Secret v. v. Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al. (537 U.S. 418)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 4, 2003 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 537 U.S. 418 · 123 S. Ct. 1115
- Decided
- March 4, 2003
- Term
- October Term 2002
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1995 Congress amended §43 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U. S. C. § 1125, to provide a remedy for the “dilution of famous marks.” 109 Stat. 985-986. That amendment, known as the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), describes the factors that determine whether a mark is “distinctive and famous,” and defines the term “dilution” as “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.” The question we granted certiorari to decide is whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark (as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective “likelihood of dilution” standard) is a requisite for relief under the I Petitioners, Victor and Cathy Moseley, own and operate a retail store named “Victor’s Little Secret” in a strip mall in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. They have no employees. Respondents are affiliated corporations that own the VICTORIA’S SECRET trademark and operate over 750 Victoria’s Secret stores, two of which are in Louisville, Kentucky, a short drive from Elizabethtown. In 1998 they spent over $55 million advertising “the VICTORIA’S SECRET brand-one of moderately priced, high quality, attractively designed lingerie sold in a store setting designed to look like a worn-[a]n’s bedroom.” App. 167, 170. They distribute 400 million copies of the…
Excerpt of a 30,451-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.