Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (2025)

Dilution.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

495.151 Dilution.—

(1) The owner of a mark that 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 and to obtain such other relief against another person’s commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use begins after the mark has become famous and is likely to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark, as provided in this section. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors, including, but not limited to:

(a) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark in this state.

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

(d) The geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used.

(e) The channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used.

(f) 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.

(g) The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties.

(h) Whether the mark is the subject of a state registration in this state or a federal registration under the Federal Trademark Act of March 3, 1881, or the Federal Trademark Act of February 20, 1905, or a principal register registration under the Federal Trademark Act of July 5, 1946.

(2) 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. If such willful intent is proven, and the mark is registered in this state, the owner shall also be entitled to all remedies set forth in this chapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.

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

(a) 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.

(b) Noncommercial use of the mark.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-58; s. 557, ch. 97-103; s. 17, ch. 2006-191.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 102 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Florida Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Florida Nat'l Univ., Inc., 830 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Florida Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Florida Nat'l Univ., Inc., 830 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 1125 (a); (3) Florida trademark dilution and injury to business reputation, Fla. Stat. § 495.151 ; (4) Florida trademark infringement, Fla.”

Great S. v. First S., 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 9× “First Southern Bank opened for business in September 1987; Great Southern Bank opened for business in April 1989, twenty miles away, and was sued by First Southern Bank for common-law trade name infringement, common-law unfair competition, and violation of section 495.151,…”

Florida Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Florida Nat'l Univ., Inc., 91 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 6× “Count III: Florida Trademark Dilution and Injury to Business Reputation With this claim, FIU alleges that FNU has wrongly diluted the distinctiveness of the FIU marks by using a confusingly similar mark, in violation of Fla.”

Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. Ann. § 495.151 (West 2000). Finding that Planetary Motion had established priority of use and a likelihood of confusion, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered summary judgment in favor of Planetary Mo *1191 tion.”

Rain Bird Corp. v. Taylor, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 4× “, Florida common law, the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act (“FRPTA”), Fla. Stat. § 495.151 , and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla.”

Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 4× “(Count IV); statutory injury to business reputation and dilution pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (Count V), common law unjust enrichment (Count VI); misappropriation and conversion (Count VII), tortious interference (Count VIII), and declaratory and supplemental relief pursuant…”

Am. United Life Ins. v. Am. United Ins., 731 F. Supp. 480 (S.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 6× “Fla.Stat. § 495.151. Under this section of the Florida Statutes, neither competition nor confusion is required.”

Marks v. Cayo Hueso, Ltd., 437 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · cites it 9× “, (CHL), owner of the Casa Marina Hotel, presented sufficient competent substantial evidence to warrant injunctive relief pursuant to Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1977), we affirm.”

Universal Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 223 ; (3) dilution of trade name under Fla. Stat. § 495.151 ; and (4) cyberstalking under Fla.”

Ocean Bio-Chem, Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 6× “§ 1125 (a) (1988), the codification of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act; 1 (2) injury to business reputation in violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151 (1989); and (3) dilution of trademark and trade name in violation of Fla.”

United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Sunrise Mold Co., 569 F. Supp. 1475 (S.D. Fla. 1983). · cites it 5× “, the Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution of Trademark Law, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 and the common law of the State of Florida.”

Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 1999). · cites it 4× “This conclusion also applies to the Plaintiff's claim under the Florida Dilution Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.151 . Although Florida law does not require the mark to be "famous,” Florida courts do require the mark to be "highly distinctive.”

Show all 102 citing cases →

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.