Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1448.01 (2026)

Injury to business reputation; dilution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The owner of a mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and on terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name, if the use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark and to obtain other relief provided in this section. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider at least the following factors:

1. The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark in this state.

2. The duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods and services with which the mark is used.

3. The duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark in this state.

4. The geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used.

5. The channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used.

6. The degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade in this state used by the mark's owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought.

7. The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties.

8. 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.

B. In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark is entitled only to injunctive relief in this state, unless the person against whom the injunctive relief is sought wilfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark. If wilful intent is proven, 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.

C. The following are not actionable under this section:

1. Fair use of a mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

2. Noncommercial use of the mark.

3. All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniel's Props., Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D. Ariz. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniel's Props., Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D. Ariz. 2018). · cites it 12× “§ 1125 (c) ; A.R.S. § 44-1448.01 ; Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.”
Samuel Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, The, 545 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 47-25-513 (“Injury to business reputation; dilution”), with Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1448.01 (“Injury to business reputation; dilution”).”
DriveTime Sales & Fin. Co. LLC v. Drivetime Inc. (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 11× “21 § 1125(c) and Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1448.01 . Defendant seeks dismissal of Count Five 22 only.”
Whaleco Inc. v. Kape Tech. (Cyprus) Ltd. (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 4× “4 §§ 1114, 1116, and 1125, and Arizona common and statutory law, A.R.S. § 44-1448.01. 5 (FAC ¶¶ 50–69.) 6 On May 15, 2024, the Court entered Consent Judgments against four Defendants— 7 Arshpreet Singh, Mahmoud Nassar, Swap Internet LLC, and Swap Internet Nigeria Ltd.”
Whaleco Inc. v. Arslan (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (c) and A.R.S. § 44-1448.01 because it has demonstrated that the TEMU 18 Marks are famous and distinctive, that Defendants began using the TEMU Marks in 19 commerce after the TEMU Marks became famous and distinctive, that Defendants acted 20 willfully with intent to trade…”
Whaleco Inc. v. Arslan (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (c) and A.R.S. § 44-1448.01. 19 In granting preliminary injunctive relief, the Court previously determined that Whaleco is 20 likely to succeed on its claims, and by failing to appear and defend against the allegations, 21 Defendants have done nothing to dispel the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1448.01(A) — 1 case
VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniel's Props., Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 891 (D. Ariz. 2018). “§ 1125 (c) ; A.R.S. § 44-1448.01 ; Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.”
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.