New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. General Business Law § 360 (2026)
Definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 360. Definitions. (a) The term "trademark" as used herein means any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof used by a person to identify and distinguish the goods of such person, including a unique product, from those manufactured and sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown. (b) The term "service mark" as used herein means any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof used by a person to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others, and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names used by a person, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor. (c) The term "mark" as used herein includes any trademark or service mark, entitled to registration under this article whether registered or not. (d) The term "trade name" means any name used by a person to identify a business or vocation of such person. (e) The term "person" and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other party entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this article includes a juristic person as well as a natural person. The term "juristic person" includes a firm, partnership, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law. (f) The term "applicant" as used herein embraces the person filing an application for registration of a mark under this article, and the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of such person. (g) The term "registrant" as used herein embraces the person to whom the registration of a mark under this article is issued, and the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of such person. (h) The term "use" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For the purposes of this article, a mark shall be deemed to be in use (1) on goods when it is placed in any manner on the goods or other containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and the goods are sold or transported in commerce in this state, and (2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in this state. (i) A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when either of the following occurs: (1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for two consecutive years shall constitute prima facie evidence of abandonment. (2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to lose its significance as a mark. (j) The term "secretary" as used herein means the secretary of the state or the designee of the secretary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Ergowerx Int'l, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of Am., 18 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Ergowerx Int'l, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of Am., 18 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “In addition to (1) breach of contract; these claims are for (2) promissory estoppel; (3) intentional interference with economic advantage; (4) fraud in the inducement; (5) fraud; (6) conversion; (7) patent infringement; (8) trademark infringement; (9) violations of the Lanham…”
Est. of Ellington Ex Rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “§ 1125 (c) and N.Y. General Business Law § 360 -i. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, monetary damages, and other such relief as the Court deems proper.”
Bath & Body Works Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Summit Ent., LLC, 7 F. Supp. 3d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “Trademark Dilution Claims Summit’s third claim for relief is for trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act and N.Y. General Business Law § 360 -L. 9 “Unlike traditional infringement law, the prohibitions against trademark dilution .”
Strange Music, Inc. v. Strange Music, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “Standard for a Claim Under New York’s Anti-Dilution Statute To succeed on a claim under N.Y. General Business Law § 360 -i, a plaintiff “must prove (1) that the trademark is truly distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning, and (2) a likelihood of dilution either as a result…”
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 467 F. Supp. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “§ 1127 ; General Business Law § 360(a-i). Entertainment is considered a service in connection with the law of service marks.”
Gasoline Heaven at Commack, Inc. v. Nesconset Gas Heaven, Inc., 191 Misc. 2d 646 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002). “Although plaintiffs complaint lists its address as 2088 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, and the filing information lists the address as 6143 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, this difference is not dispositive for the current inquiry (see, General Business Law § 360-/).”
Car-Freshner Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. 2024). “2d 242, 244 (2005) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) ("A party asserting a claim for unfair competition predicated upon trademark infringement or dilution in violation of General Business Law §§ 360–k and 360–l must show that the defendant's use of the trademark is likely to…”
Hamilton Int'l Ltd. v. Vortic LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2019). “Since there is at least a genuine dispute of material fact on whether there is a likelihood of confusion, summary judgment is denied for the counterfeiting claim as well. C. Dilution Claim Plaintiff has also moved for summary judgment on both Federal and New York dilution claims.”
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.