Term: 2002
Docket: 01-1015
Victor Moseley And Cathy Moseley, Dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., Et Al.
- Pro
01-1015 MOSELEY v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. Ruling below: CA 6, 259 F.3d 464. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the plain meaning of the operative phrase "causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark,"read in pari materia with the definition of dilution as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services," requires objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of the famous mark (as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective "likelihood of dilution" standard) as a precondition to any and all relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. CERT. GRANTED: 4/15/02
In the 2002 case of Victor Moseley and Cathy Moseley, DBA Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a small Kentucky store named "Victor’s Little Secret" against Victoria's Secret. The lingerie giant sued for trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), arguing that the smaller store was tarnishing its brand image. However, the court held that to establish a claim under FTDA, it is not enough to simply prove that consumers mentally associate one user's mark with another; actual harm must be demonstrated. This means evidence showing that economic harm has been caused due to either blurring or tarnishment of their mark by another business' similar name or logo is required. As such proof was lacking from Victoria’s Secrets’ side, they lost this landmark case which set an important precedent in trademark law.
In the dissenting opinion for Victor Moseley and Cathy Moseley, DBA Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority misinterpreted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA). He believed that actual harm should be proven before a claim of trademark dilution is valid. According to him, there was no evidence presented in this case showing that "Victor’s Little Secret" tarnished or blurred Victoria's Secret brand image or reputation. Furthermore, he pointed out that both businesses operated in different markets with one being an upscale national chain while the other was a small retail store selling less glamorous products which made it unlikely for consumers to associate one with another. Therefore, he concluded that without proof of real damage caused by confusion between two marks operating in distinct markets and catering to different clientele bases, no violation under FTDA could be established.
