13. The owner of a mark which is famous in this State shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity, to an injunction, commencing after the owner's mark becomes famous, against another person's use of the mark which causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the owner's mark, and to obtain other relief provided in this section. In determining whether a mark is famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to:
a. The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark in this State;
b. The duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods and services;
c. The duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark in this State;
d. The geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
e. The channels of trade for the goods or services with which the registrant's mark is used;
f. The degree of recognition of the registrant's mark in its and in the other's trading areas and channels of trade in this State; and
g. The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties.
The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief in this State in an action brought under this section, unless the subsequent user willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the owner's mark. If willful intent is proven, the owner shall also be entitled to any other remedies set forth in this act, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.
Notes of Decisions
E.A. Sween Co. v. Deli Express of Tenafly, LLC., 19 F. Supp. 3d 560 (D.N.J. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Section 1125 (c); Trademark Dilution under New Jersey law, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:3-13.20; and Unfair Competition under New Jersey, pursuant to N.”
Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998).
· cites it 7× “N.J.S.A. 56:3-13.20. Section 56:3-13.20 appears to be the state-law equivalent of Section 1125(c).”
Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D.N.J. 2002).
· cites it 3× “§ 1125 (a), violation of the federal dilution law, § 1125(c), and for violation of state unfair competition and anti-dilution laws under the common law and N.J. Stat. § 56:3-13.20. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.”
Gateway 2000, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp., 942 F. Supp. 985 (D.N.J. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Gateway alleges violation of the New Jersey anti-dilution statute, N.J.S.A. 56:3-13.20 and the New Jersey Unfair Competition Act, N.”
Akhenaten v. NAJEE, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
“§ 1125 (c), and New Jersey state law, N.J.S.A. 56:3-13.20; (8) importation of infringing goods in violation of 15 U.”
CIT Grp., Inc. v. Citicorp, 20 F. Supp. 2d 775 (D.N.J. 1998).
“Because the standard for dilution under the Lanham Act and N.J.S.A. 56:3-13.20 are similar, see Jews for Jesus v.”
Arro-mark Co. LLC v. Warren (D.N.J. 2024).
· cites it 3× “§ 1125 (c)(l) of the Lanham Act (Count 15) and trademark dilution under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:3-13.20 (Count 16). SKM argues Arro-Mark’s claims must be dismissed because the marks are not famous, and they are inherently descriptive.”
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.