647.107
Grounds for injunctive relief; famous marks. (1) Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of
a mark that is famous and distinctive in this state, inherently or through
acquired distinctiveness, is entitled to an injunction against another person’s
commercial use of the mark if:
(a) The other
person’s use began after the mark became famous; and
(b) The use is
likely to cause dilution of the famous mark.
(2) A mark is
famous if the general consuming public of this state or of a geographic area
within this state widely recognizes the mark as a designation of the source of
the mark owner’s goods or services. In determining whether a mark is famous, a
court may consider factors such as:
(a) The duration,
extent and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark in this
state by the owner or by other persons;
(b) The amount,
volume and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the
mark in this state;
(c) The extent to
which the mark is actually recognized in this state; and
(d) Whether the
mark is registered in this state, appears on the principal register created
under the Trademark Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 427, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., or is
otherwise registered under federal law.
(3) In an action
brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark is entitled to
injunctive relief throughout the geographic area in which the court finds that
the mark became famous before the other person began the other person’s use of
the mark. The court may not order injunctive relief outside this state.
(4) If the court
finds that the other person willfully intended to cause dilution of the famous
mark, the owner is entitled to the remedies provided in this chapter, subject
to the court’s discretion and the principles of equity.
(5) An owner of a
famous mark may not bring an action for another person’s use if the use is a
nominative or descriptive fair use or facilitation of a nominative or
descriptive fair use, other than as a designation of source for the other
person’s own goods or services, including a use:
(a) In connection
with:
(A) Advertising
or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
(B) Identifying
or parodying, criticizing or commenting upon the owner of the famous mark or
the goods or services of the owner of the famous mark;
(b) That is
noncommercial; or
(c) That
constitutes news reporting or news commentary. [1971 c.122 §2; 2009 c.459 §16]
647.110 [Repealed by 1961 c.497 §16]
Notes of Decisions
Adidas-Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D. Or. 2008).
· cites it 3× “Oregon State Law Dilution adidas has also asserted a claim under Oregon’s anti-dilution statute, Or. Rev.Stat. § 647.107. Oregon’s dilution statute provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a [registered] mark .”
Adidas Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Or. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Oregon State Law Dilution adidas has also asserted a claim under Oregon’s anti-dilution statute, Or. Rev.Stat. § 647.107. Oregon’s dilution statute provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a [registered] mark .”
Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. Lund, 659 P.2d 377 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 5× “This case presents for our consideration the extent of protection of trademarks and names provided by ORS 647.107, Oregon’s antidilution statute.”
Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. Lund, 648 P.2d 393 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 16× “Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s use of the name constitutes common law unfair competition and violates Oregon’s “antidilution statute,” ORS 647.107. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s decree enjoining him from using the name in eastern Washington County.”
Frostig v. Saga Enter., Inc., 539 P.2d 154 (Or. 1975).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs assert that they have acquired a protectible interest in the name “Black Angus” under both the common law of unfair competition and under ORS 647.107, which provides as follows: “Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of…”
Beef & Brew, Inc. v. Beef & Brew, Inc., 389 F. Supp. 179 (D. Or. 1974).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff, a Washington corporation, seeks damages and an injunction, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of Oregon’s Anti-Dilution Statute, ORS 647.107. Defendant, an Oregon corporation, denies Plaintiff’s allegations and asserts that Plaintiff…”
Tech Heads, Inc. v. Desktop Serv. Ctr., Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Or. 2000).
“105 and Oregon common law (Second Claim for Relief), service mark dilution under ORS 647.107 and Oregon common law (Third Claim for Relief), and unfair competition under Oregon common law (Fourth Claim for Relief).”
Interstellar Starship Servs. v. Epix, Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Or. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 1125 (a)), Oregon trademark dilution (ORS 647.107 and under the common law), Oregon trademark infringement (ORS 647.”
Ernst Hardware Co. v. Ernst Home Ctr., Inc., 895 P.2d 1363 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “After trial, the court dismissed plaintiff s complaint, denying relief under alternative claims of common law trade name infringement and trade name dilution under ORS 647.107. We review de novo, ORS 19.125(3), and affirm.”
W. Bank v. W. Bancorporation, 617 P.2d 258 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“xmwvizm9qV4RdpKvI97dKCOumg4J+F1NiVoPlucLa1WB5rrBOBpvNhLdlsIvkhXZxxmIXxJ3fZzsjUh2fXhAnn1pvZLB2JiyE1Qvizm+RmpFV6VIvsOcWe85Lsl0Qd36frZ4OPmfP1shgF8kL7AvsM4heDXaRvGiTX2DPUOxqsDwP2EsboKwTw2pzmavO/+QHn/lqa/SdQvPkO6WdnXjFk++UdnayIl2KF9gX2BfYF9gX2BdY4P8BB0e+gXZfjD4AAAAASUVORK5CYII="…”
Schoene v. Christensen (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 12× “" Or. Rev. Stat. § 647.107 (2). The relevant factors for determining a mark's famousness under ORS § 647.”
Schoene v. Christensen (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 4× “095; (3) trademark dilution under ORS § 647.107; and (4) unfair trade practices under Oregon Revised Statute § 646.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 647.107(1) — 1 case
Schoene v. Christensen (D. Or. 2024).
“" Or. Rev. Stat. § 647.107 (2). The relevant factors for determining a mark's famousness under ORS § 647.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 647.107(2) — 1 case
Schoene v. Christensen (D. Or. 2024).
“" Or. Rev. Stat. § 647.107 (2). The relevant factors for determining a mark's famousness under ORS § 647.”
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.