(a) The owner of a mark that is famous in this state may, subject to the principles of equity and upon terms the court considers reasonable: seek an injunction against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name, if the use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark; and obtain other relief as 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.
(b) In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark is 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 willful intent is proven, the owner is entitled to the remedies in this chapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
(c) 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 the mark; and
(3) all forms of news reporting and news commentary.
Notes of Decisions
Northland Ins. Companies v. Blaylock, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Minnesota 2000).
· cites it 4× “1125 (c) (1999), and the Minnesota state anti-dilution statute, Minn.Stat. § 333.285 (1998). Plaintiff must show five elements to support a claim of dilution: (1) plaintiffs mark must be famous; (2) plaintiffs mark must be distinctive; (3) defendant’s use must be a commercial…”
J & B Wholesale Distrib., Inc. v. Redux Beverages, LLC, 621 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D. Minnesota 2007).
· cites it 4× “30; and 6) dilution in violation of Minn.Stat. § 333.285. Standard The Eighth Circuit has established the following analysis to be used in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief: [Wjhether a preliminary injunction should issue involves consideration of (1) the…”
Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. SUBWAY. SY LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 2× “44); Count VII (dilution and injury to business reputation under Minn.Stat. § 333.285); or Count VIII (unfair competition).”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Powerlift’s tenth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark dilution, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 333.285 , by using Powerlift’s trademarks in the advertising and sale of products.”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Powerlift’s tenth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark dilution, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 333.285 , by using Powerlift’s trademarks in the advertising and sale of products.”
Powerlift Door Consultants, Inc. v. Shepard (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Powerlift’s tenth claim alleges that Defendants are engaging in trademark dilution, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 333.285 , by using Powerlift’s trademarks in the advertising and sale of products.”
3M Co. v. Nationwide Source Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021).
“3M’s eighth claim alleges that Nationwide is engaging in trademark dilution, in violation of Minnesota Statutes § 333.285, by using 3M’s trademarks in the advertising and sale of counterfeit products.”
— Minn. Stat. § 333.285(c)(2)(1998) — 1 case
Northland Ins. Companies v. Blaylock, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (D. Minnesota 2000).
“1125 (c) (1999), and the Minnesota state anti-dilution statute, Minn.Stat. § 333.285 (1998). Plaintiff must show five elements to support a claim of dilution: (1) plaintiffs mark must be famous; (2) plaintiffs mark must be distinctive; (3) defendant’s use must be a commercial…”
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.