417.061. Injunctive relief, when — order for payment to owner of mark — destruction of counterfeit marks. — 1. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, 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.
2. Any owner of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066 may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacturer, use, display or sale of any counterfeits or imitations thereof and any court of competent jurisdiction may grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display or sale as may be by the said court deemed just and reasonable, and may require the defendants to pay to such owner all profits derived from or damages suffered by reason of such wrongful manufacture, use, display or sale; and such court may also order that any such counterfeits or imitations in the possession or under the control of any defendant in such case be delivered to an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. The court, in its discretion, may enter judgment in such cases where the court finds that a party committed such wrongful acts with knowledge or in bad faith or otherwise as according to the circumstances of the case.
3. The enumeration of any right or remedy herein shall not affect a registrant's right to prosecute under any penal law of this state.
Notes of Decisions
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Hallmark Dodge, Inc. (1986)
mowd · cites it 14×
“§ 1125 (a); and has diluted the distinctiveness of plaintiff’s trademark in violation of the Missouri anti-dilution statute, section 417.061 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.”
Phx. Entm't Partners, LLC v. Ryco Enters., LLC (2018)
moed · cites it 10×
“Phoenix also alleges the Defendants violated Missouri's anti-dilution statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.061 , and the common law prohibition against unfair competition.”
Sensient Technologies v. Sensoryeffects Flavor (2009)
moed · cites it 10×
“066(1), and in Count 6 Plaintiffs seek to recover for Trademark Dilution under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061(1). II. MOTION TO STRIKE Defendants have filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Monica M.”
WSM, Inc. v. Hilton (1982)
mowd · cites it 10×
“§ 1125 and Missouri common law, and have diluted the distinctiveness of WSM trademarks in violation of Section 417.061 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.”
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Corp. (1983)
moed · cites it 6×
“1125(a), common law unfair competition, and violation of the Missouri anti-dilution statute, § 417.061, R.S.Mo. Defendants argue that it is entitled to use the mark "EMERSON QUIET HEAT" in connection with the sale of kerosene space heaters, because such a use is a logical…”
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications (1993)
moed · cites it 8×
“056; (4) common law unfair competition; and (5) dilution of Plaintiff's marks and injury to its business reputation under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061. Plaintiff seeks one dollar in nominal damages and injunctive relief.”
Steak N Shake Co. v. Burger King Corp. (2004)
moed · cites it 2×
“Missouri's anti-dilution statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061, provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a [registered] mark .”
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. Meyer (2008)
moed · cites it 4×
“…the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (Count IV); common law unfair competition (Count V); dilution, in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 417.061 et seq. (Count VI); and misuse of a benevolent society's name, in violation of §§ 417.150 et seq. (Count VII). Defendant moves for…”
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Stowell (2001)
moed · cites it 2×
“§ 1125 (a) (Count 3); common law trademark infringement (Count 4); unfair competition (Count 5); and Missouri's antidilution statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061 (Count 6). Arguing that this Court [2] lacks personal jurisdiction over him, Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.061(1) — 2 cases
Sensient Technologies v. Sensoryeffects Flavor (2009)
moed
“066(1), and in Count 6 Plaintiffs seek to recover for Trademark Dilution under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061(1). II. MOTION TO STRIKE Defendants have filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Monica M.”
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications (1993)
moed
“056; (4) common law unfair competition; and (5) dilution of Plaintiff's marks and injury to its business reputation under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 417.061. Plaintiff seeks one dollar in nominal damages and injunctive relief.”
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.