Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

54 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1124 (2026)

Injury to business or reputation; dilution.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1124. Injury to business or reputation; dilution.

The owner of a mark which is famous in this Commonwealth shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark and to obtain such other relief as is 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 Commonwealth.

(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 Commonwealth.

(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 Commonwealth 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 marks by third parties.

(8) Whether the mark is the subject of a registration in this Commonwealth or a Federal registration under the act of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 502) or the act of February 20, 1905 (33 Stat. 724), repealed by the Trademark Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 427, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), or on the principal register.

In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief in this Commonwealth 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 such willful intent is proven, the owner shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in this chapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity. The following shall not be 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 a mark.

(3) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(June 18, 1998, P.L.518, No.73, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: ACUMED LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ACUMED LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2009). “§ 1125 , violation of Pennsylvania’s Anti-Dilution statute, 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1124 (West 1996), unfair competition, breach of a non-disclosure provi *208 sion in the Advanced-Acumed Agreement, conversion, unjust enrichment, and tor-tious interference with existing or…”

Guardian Life Ins. of Am. v. Am. Guardian Life Assurance Co., 943 F. Supp. 509 (E.D. Pa. 1996). · cites it 4× “1996) (Count II); (3) dilution under the Pennsylvania Trademark Act, 54 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1124 (West Supp.1996) (Count III); and (4) unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law (Count TV).”

Reed v. Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 706 (M.D. Penn. 2013). · cites it 3× “) Specifically, he alleges that Defendants have “benefitted from their association with the REACH! Program, the Reed Marks, Trade Dress, and Jason Reed’s detrimental reliance and efforts to advance the Afterschool Program.”

Malletier v. Veit, 211 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “§ 1125 (d) (Count 5), trademark dilution under Pennsylvania statutory law, 54 Pa.C.S. § 1124 (Count 6), and unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law (Count 7), based upon the sale of counterfeit goods bearing the federally registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs.”

Nugget Distributors Coop. of Am., Inc. v. Mr. Nugget, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 1012 (E.D. Pa. 1991). · cites it 3× “(the "Lan-ham Act”), the common law of Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania’s Anti-Dilution statute, 54 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1124 (Purdon 1986 Supp.”

Beauty Time, Inc. Beauty Makers, Inc. & R. Richard Riso v. Vu Skin Sys., Inc. Bjv Dpm Skin Sys., Inc. & Marion M. Vujevich, 118 F.3d 140 (3rd Cir. 1997). “The plaintiffs did not acquire any ownership rights in the trademark under Pennsylvania law, and the mark is neither registered nor valid at common law.”

Strick Corp. v. Strickland, 162 F. Supp. 2d 372 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (c) (the “federal dilution statute”) 9 and Pennsylvania’s anti-dilution statute, 54 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1124. Dilution is “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of — 1)…”

R.J. Ants, Inc. v. Marinelli Enter., LLC, 771 F. Supp. 2d 475 (E.D. Pa. 2011). “See 54 Pa.C.S. § 1124. To recover, the plaintiff must prove that its mark has acquired a secondary meaning and has a degree of distinctiveness and strength beyond that needed to serve as a trademark.”

McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners LLC, 512 F. Supp. 2d 217 (E.D. Pa. 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1125 ; dilution of trade dress and trademark under *220 Pennsylvania state law, 54 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 1124; unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law; and misappropriation of an advertising idea under Pennsylvania common law.”

World Wrestling Fed'n Ent., Inc. v. Big Dog Holdings, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 413 (W.D. Pa. 2003). “§ 1125 (c), (Count XI), violation of the Pennsylvania anti-dilution statute, 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1124 (Count XII), violation of Pennsylvania fair trade practices statutes, 73 Pa.”

Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Airways, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 1470 (E.D. Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “) There is no factual basis upon which to conclude AIG will be harmed by Airways’ resumption of service.”

Gideons Int'l, Inc. v. Gideon 300 Ministries, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 566 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “See 54 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1124 . The two basic elements of the claim are a famous mark and an act of dilution.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

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.