Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 8-12-17 (2026)

Injunctive Relief; Famous Marks.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a mark which is famous and distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, in this state shall be entitled to an injunction against another person’s commercial use of a mark, if such use begins after the famous mark has become famous and is likely to cause dilution of the famous mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this section.

(b) A mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of this state or a significant geographic area in this state as a designation of source of the goods or services or the business of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark is famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to:

(1) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark in this state, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties.

(2) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales offered under the mark in this state.

(3) The extent of actual recognition of the mark in this state or a significant geographic area in this state.

(4) Whether the mark is the subject of a state registration in this state, or a federal registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or under the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended.

(c) In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled to injunctive relief throughout the geographic area in which the mark is found to have become famous prior to commencement of the junior use, but not beyond the borders of this state. If the person against whom the injunctive relief is sought willfully intended to cause dilution of the famous mark, then the owner shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in this chapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.

(d) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(1) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services or business, including use in connection with:

a. Advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services or businesses; or

b. Identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services or business of the famous mark owner.

(2) Noncommercial use of the mark and all forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(Acts 1980, No. 80-166, p. 236, §12; Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-924, p. 526, §1; Act 2010-747, p. 1886, §1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Alfa Corp. v. Alfa Mortg. Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (M.D. Ala. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alfa Corp. v. Alfa Mortg. Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (M.D. Ala. 2008). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff asserts the following five Counts in its Complaint: (1) federal trademark infringement, (2) violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, (3) common law trademark infringement, (4) common law unfair competition, and (5) trademark dilution under Ala.Code § 8-12-17.…”

Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 170 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 1999). “Law § 360-1 (McKinney 1998); Ala.Code § 8-12-17 (1998); Cal. Bus. & Prof.”

Arthur Young, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 579 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. Ala. 1983). · cites it 2× “Counterclaimant further alleged that such use dilutes the distinctive quality of these marks and trade names and is likely to injure the reputation of such marks and names, in violation of the Alabama Anti-Dilution statute, 1975 Code of Alabama § 8-12-17. Counter-claimant Arthur…”

Lee v. Monroe Cnty. Heritage Museum, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Ala. 2014). · cites it 2× “Code § 8-12-16(1); (5) trademark dilution in violation of Ala.Code § 8-12-17; (6) common law passing off; (7) common law trademark infringement; (8) unjust enrichment; and (9) unauthorized commercial use of elements of the plaintiffs personality.”

Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. Lund, 659 P.2d 377 (Or. 1983). “…enacted such statutes. Most of them, like Oregon, have adopted the language of the Model State Trademark Bill. See Ala Code § 8-12-17 (1980); Ark Stat Ann § 70-550 (1979); Cal Bus § Prof Code § 14330 (West 1982); Conn Gen Stat § 35-lli(c) (1981); Del Code Ann tit. 6, § 3313…”

EBSCO Indus., Inc. v. LMN Enter., Inc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 1125 (c); Jitterbug configuration; Hula Popper Configuration; Deep Teeny Wee Crawfish configuration, Spook and Zara Spook word and configuration, Torpedo word and configuration Counts VI, XII, XVII, XXIV, XXVII, XXXa 2 , XXXIII: Dilution under Alabama Code § 8-12-17- —…”

ALK 2, LLC v. K2 Marine, Inc. (M.D. Ala. 2022). · cites it 5× “Ala. Code § 8-12-17 . A statutory comment explains that § 8-12-17 “codifies the common law rule governing injunctive relief.”

Alfa Corp. v. Alpha Warranty Servs., Inc. (M.D. Ala. 2023). · cites it 2× “Code § 8-12-17 (a) (1975). While “an infringement action is based on the likelihood of consumer confusion between suppliers of competing goods in the same geographic locale[,] .”

Kings Creek Apparel LLC v. Wakefields Inc (N.D. Ala. 2021). “§ 1125 (c) (“Count Three”); (4) trademark dilution, in violation of Alabama Code § 8-12-17 (“Count Four”); and (5) common law trademark infringement, in violation of Alabama law (“Count Five”).”

Ringling Bros. v. Utah Div. of Travel (4th Cir. 1999). “Law § 360-1 (McKin- ney 1998); Ala. Code § 8-12-17 (1998); Cal. Bus. & Prof.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.