Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213 (2026)

Injury to business reputation — Dilution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. The owner of a mark which is famous in this state shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this section.
    2. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to:
      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; and
      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.
    1. In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief in this state, unless the person against whom the injunctive relief is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark.
    2. If such willful intent is proven, the owner shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in this subchapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
  1. The following shall not be actionable under this section:
    1. Fair use of a famous 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; and
    3. All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

History. Acts 1997, No. 1109, § 13.

Publisher's Notes. The phrase “under the act of March 3, 1881, or under the act of February 20, 1905” may possibly be interpreted to mean “in the Patent Office.”

U.S. Code. The act of March 3, 1881, and the act of February 20, 1905 were repealed by the Trademark Act of 1946, insofar as they were inconsistent with that act. The act of February 20, 1905 was formerly codified as 15 U.S.C. § 81 et seq. The Trademark Act of 1946, also known as the Lanham Act, is codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

Case Notes

Dismissal of Claim.

Defendant's dilution of trademark counterclaim under this section, arising out of the fact that it and plaintiff used the same trophy hunters association name, was dismissed with prejudice because the name was merely descriptive, it had not acquired a secondary meaning, and it was not a “famous” mark. The name was used only in a very narrow channel of trade, or niche market, and it did not have such powerful consumer associations that even non-competing uses could impinge on its value. Ark. Trophy Hunters Ass'n v. Tex. Trophy Hunters Ass'n, 506 F. Supp. 2d 277 (W.D. Ark. 2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software Ltd., 309 F. Supp. 3d 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software Ltd., 309 F. Supp. 3d 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). · cites it 6× “(the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or "ADTPA"); and (9) unfair competition in violation of Arkansas common law. In Chaos's Motion for Summary Judgment on these claims, it groups them into four categories-a grouping to which this Opinion and Order will also adhere.”
Nat'l Ass'n for Healthcare Commc'ns, Inc. v. Cent. Arkansas Area Agency on Aging, Inc., 257 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2001). “See Ark.Code Ann. § 4-71-213, patterned after the federal anti-dilution statute, 15 U.”
Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., 330 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213 (2002); N.M. Stat.”
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software LTD (W.D. Ark. 2018). · cites it 11× “§ 4-71-212; (6) trademark infringement in violation of Arkansas common law; (7) trademark dilution in violation of Ark. Code Ann.§ 4-71-213; (8) deceptive trade practices in violation of Ark.”
Zetor North Am., Inc. v. Rozeboom (W.D. Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “Count IV arises under Arkansas law governing trademark , Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213 , and states a cause of action for trademark dilution and injury to business reputation .”
Ipos LLC v. Sobba (E.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 4-71-213(a)(1). Neither side has made any argument about whether the Seductions marks are famous as defined in the governing statute.”
Arkansas Trophy Hunters Ass'n v. Texas Trophy Hunters Ass'n, 506 F. Supp. 2d 277 (W.D. Ark. 2007). “§ 4-71-213. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims of both parties herein are dis *285 missed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.”
Natl. Assoc. for v. Cent. AR Area (8th Cir. 2001). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213 , patterned after the federal anti-dilution statute, 15 U.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213(a) — 1 case
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software LTD (W.D. Ark. 2018). “§ 4-71-212; (6) trademark infringement in violation of Arkansas common law; (7) trademark dilution in violation of Ark. Code Ann.§ 4-71-213; (8) deceptive trade practices in violation of Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213(a)(1) — 1 case
Ipos LLC v. Sobba (E.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 4-71-213(a)(1). Neither side has made any argument about whether the Seductions marks are famous as defined in the governing statute.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213(a)(2) — 1 case
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software LTD (W.D. Ark. 2018). “§ 4-71-212; (6) trademark infringement in violation of Arkansas common law; (7) trademark dilution in violation of Ark. Code Ann.§ 4-71-213; (8) deceptive trade practices in violation of Ark.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-71-213(b) — 1 case
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software LTD (W.D. Ark. 2018). “§ 4-71-212; (6) trademark infringement in violation of Arkansas common law; (7) trademark dilution in violation of Ark. Code Ann.§ 4-71-213; (8) deceptive trade practices in violation of Ark.”
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.