Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 495.181 (2025)

Construction of chapter.

✓ 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

495.181 Construction of chapter.—The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended. To that end, the construction given the federal act should be examined as persuasive authority for interpreting and construing this chapter.

History.—s. 7, ch. 90-222; s. 20, ch. 2006-191.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Great S. v. First S., 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Great S. v. First S., 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 5× “Distinctiveness We also analyze this case based on cases decided under comparable provisions of the federal Lanham Act [3] [hereinafter Act], because section 495.181, Florida Statutes (1991), [4] directs that these cases be given *467 great weight when construing chapter 495,…”

Popular Bank of Fla. v. Banco Popular Puerto Rico, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1998). · cites it 2× “First Southern Bank based on federal cases because section 495.181, Florida Statutes, is patterned on the Lanham Act.”

Noveshen v. Bridgewater Assocs., LP, 47 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. Ann. § 495.181 (West) (“The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended.”

Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Tortoise Island Realty, Inc., 790 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “In that case, the Florida Supreme Court relied on federal decisions interpreting comparable provisions of the Lanham Act, [2] "because section 495.181, directs that the federal cases be given great weight when construing chapter 495.”

Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Perez, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (S.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 2× “On July 2, 1998, the Plaintiff registered (T98000000764) the mark “SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST” in Florida under Chapter 495, F.S. § 495.181, F.S. requires that “... in construing (the Florida statute) due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal…”

Anderson v. Upper Keys Bus. Grp., Inc., 61 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). · cites it 2× “May 18, 2006); see also § 495.181, Fla. Stat. (2008) (“The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946, as…”

Gen. Conf. Seventh Day Advent. v. Perez, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (S.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 2× “On July 2, 1998, the Plaintiff registered (T98000000764) the mark "SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST" in Florida under Chapter 495, F.S. § 495.181, F.S. requires that "... in construing (the Florida statute) due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal…”

Around the Clock A/C Serv., LLC v. Proquest, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 495.181, Fla. Stat. Given the similarity of the statutes and the absence of contrary authority, the Court finds that a third party must allege, and ultimately prove, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation in order to establish a claim under section 495.”

Naples Screen Repair, LLC v. Arrow Handyman \LLC\"" (M.D. Fla. 2021). · cites it 2× “3d at 1373 ; Fla. Stat. § 495.181 . Like above, Arrow’s mere allegation of failure to disclaim screen and repair do not plead fraud with particularity.”

Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC (M.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 2× “2015); see also Fla. Stat. § 495.181 (“The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended.”

Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 2× “” (quotation omitted)); see also Fla. Stat. § 495.181 (“The intent of this chapter is to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection substantially consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946, as…”

Promotora De Servicios, S.A. v. Los Ranchos Restaurant, Inc., 755 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “See § 495.181, Fla. Stat. (Supp.l998)(“It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing this chapter, due consideration and great weight be given to the interpretations of the federal courts relating to comparable provisions of the Trademark Act of 1946 [the Lanham Act].”

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.