Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13 (2026)

Injunctive relief

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 13. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under this chapter, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods or services.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: United Oil Heat, Inc. v. M.J. Meehan Excavating, Inc., 129 N.E.3d 856 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United Oil Heat, Inc. v. M.J. Meehan Excavating, Inc., 129 N.E.3d 856 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “On August 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed its complaint in the Superior Court, alleging common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution *860 under G. L. c. 110H, § 13, 4 and violation of G.”

Media3 Tech., LLC v. CableSouth Media III, LLC, 17 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D. Mass. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 1114 ; under the Massachusetts State Trademark Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13; and for violation of common-law trademark rights.”

Lyons v. Gillette, 882 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D. Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13. Here, even though Lyons and Homecoming Farm failed to allege that the “ACVSMR” mark was “famous” under the federal act, the less stringent requirements of “distinctiveness” under Massachusetts law are met.”

Bern Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Corp., 95 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (c) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13; and unfair competition under Mass.”

Solmetex, LLC v. Dentalez, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 4× “§ 1125 (a) (count II); state iaw trademark infringement in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13 (count III); state law trademark dilution in-violation of Mass.”

Solmetex, LLC v. Apavia LLC, 149 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D. Mass. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (a) (count II); state law trademark infringement in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 13 (count III); state law trademark dilution in violation of Mass.”

Bear Repub. Brewing Co. v. Cent. City Brewing Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D. Mass. 2010). “§ 1125 (a); in Count III, a common law claim for unfair competition; in Count VI, a state law trademark and trade dress infringement in violation of Massachusetts common law and Mass. Gen. L. c. 110H, § 13; and in Count V, a claim for unfair and deceptive acts and practices in…”

Bear Repub. Brewing Co. v. Cent. City Brewing Co., 275 F.R.D. 43 (D. Mass. 2011). “§ 1125 (a); in Count III, a common law claim for unfair competition; in Count YI, a state law trademark and trade dress infringement in violation of Massachusetts common law and Mass. Gen. L. c. 110H, § 13; and in Count V, a claim for unfair and deceptive acts and practices in…”

Com. Bank & Trust Co. v. TD Banknorth, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 2008). “§ 1125 (a) (“the Lanham Act”), (2) trademark infringement in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 12, (3) trademark dilution in violation of Mass.”

Gronk Nation, LLC v. Sully's Tees, LLC, 37 F. Supp. 3d 495 (D. Mass. 2014). “93A; (3) common-law trade name infringement; (4) trade name and trade mark infringement in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 110H, § 1 et seq.; (5) trade name and trade mark dilution in violation of Mass.”

Sterilite Corp. v. Olivet Int'l, Inc. (D. Mass. 2024). · cites it 5× “93A, § 11 (Count II); dilution, in violation of M.G.L. c. 110H, § 13 (Count III); common law unfair competition (Count IV); and tortious interference with business relationships (Count V).”

L&P Boston Operating, Inc. v. Window Nation, LLC (D. Mass. 2022). · cites it 3× “Considering Window Nation’s advertisements to have infringed and diluted its trademarked phrase, L&P brought this action in Massachusetts Superior Court for Middlesex County in December, 2021, seeking injunctive relief and asserting claims under M.G.L. c. 110H, §§ 13 and 14…”

Show all 16 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.