ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1036

765 ILCS 1036/65

Injury to business reputation; dilution

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1036/65)
    Sec. 65. Injury to business reputation; dilution.
    (a) 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 tradename, if the 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. 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.
    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 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, the owner shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in this Act, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
    (b) The following are not 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 a mark.
        (3) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(Source: P.A. 90-231, eff. 1-1-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Doctor's Data, Inc. v. Barrett
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doctor's Data, Inc. v. Barrett (2016) ilnd · cites it 3× “24) which appended the same seven articles and contained the following counts: restraint of trade, deceptive business practices, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act (Count I); trademark dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act (“ITRPA”), 765…”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Management Co. (2016) ilnd · cites it 2× “IPOX further asserts that defendants violated the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/2 (count 5), and trademark dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration Protections Act (ITRPA), 765 ILCS 1036/65(a), and Illinois common law (count 6).”
Manley v. Boat/U.S., Inc. (2014) ilnd · cites it 4× “§ 1125 (c) (Count IV) and under the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act, 765 ILCS 1036/65 (Count IX); false designation of origin under 15 U.”
Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. Ellishbooks (2020) ca7 “§1125 (c); Count V alleged dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act, 765 ILCS 1036/65; Count VI alleged un‐ fair competition under Illinois common law; Count VII alleged violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2;…”
Coach, Inc. v. 3D Designers Inspirations (2014) ilcd “§ 501 ; trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Illinois common law; trademark dilution under Illinois common law and the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act, 765 ILCS 1036/65; and unfair competition under the Illinois Consumer Fraud…”
Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. Elston Self Service Wholesale Groceries, Inc. (2009) ca7 “§ 1125 (c) and 765 ILCS 1036/65 (Counts III and IV, respectively); engaged in unfair competition in violation of Illinois common law (Count V); engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of 815 ILCS 510/2 (Count VI); engaged in common law fraud (Count VII); and induced…”
Planet Hollywood (Region IV), Inc. v. Hollywood Casino Corp. (1999) ilnd “The version of the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act in effect at the time the original complaint and counterclaim were filed in this case was repealed by 765 ILCS 1036/65, which became effective January 1, 1998.”
Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. Elston Self Service Wholesale Groceries, Inc. (2008) ilnd “§ 1125 (c) and 765 ILCS 1036/65 (Counts III and IV, respectively); engaged in unfair competition in violation of Illinois common law (Count V); engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of 815 ILCS 510/2 (Count VI); engaged in common law fraud (Count VII); and induced…”
TRT Transportation, Inc. v. Aksoy (2013) ca7 “§§ 1114 (1),1125(a), (d), and Illinois statutory and common law, see 765 ILCS 1036/65; 815 ILCS 505/1-12, 510/2.”
Medic Alert Foundation United States, Inc. v. Corel Corp. (1999) ilnd “Illinois recently enacted a new anti-dilution statute, codified at 765 ILCS 1036/65, which took effect Jan. 1, 1998.”
Alcar Group, Inc. v. Corporate Performance Systems, Ltd. (2000) ilnd “These include dilution claims arising under the Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, 765 ILCS 1036/65 (count IV), the deceptive business practices claims arising under the Illinois Consumer fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.”
Autozone, Inc. v. Strick (2006) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1036/65(a). This appears to be an actual dilution requirement.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1036/65(a) — 6 cases
Doctor's Data, Inc. v. Barrett (2016) ilnd “24) which appended the same seven articles and contained the following counts: restraint of trade, deceptive business practices, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act (Count I); trademark dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration and Protection Act (“ITRPA”), 765…”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Management Co. (2016) ilnd “IPOX further asserts that defendants violated the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/2 (count 5), and trademark dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration Protections Act (ITRPA), 765 ILCS 1036/65(a), and Illinois common law (count 6).”
Autozone, Inc. v. Strick (2006) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1036/65(a). This appears to be an actual dilution requirement.”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Mgmt. Co., Ltd. (2018)
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Lazard Asset Management, LLC (2017) ilnd
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.