Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513 (2026)

Determining if mark is distinctive and famous - Remedies

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The owner of a mark which is famous in this state 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 including, but not limited to:
- (1) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark in this state;
- (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 state;
- (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 state 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 mark by third parties; and
- (8) Whether the mark is the subject of a state registration in this state, or a federal registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or under the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

(b) In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief in this state, 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.

(c) 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 the mark; or
- (3) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Acts 1982, ch. 698, § 13; T.C.A., §§ 69-541, 47-25-433, 47-25-512; Acts 2000, ch. 671, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Samuel Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, The, 545 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Samuel Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, The, 545 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “Compare Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-513 (“Injury to business reputation; dilution”), with Ariz.”

Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, 624 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Tenn. 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 1125 (c), and state law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513 . The Court denies summary judgement on these contentions because the Plaintiffs did not address them in their motion.”

Autozone, Inc. & Speedbar, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2004). “§ 1125 (c) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513 ; and 5) breach of contract.”

Kellogg Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 192 F. Supp. 2d 790 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). · cites it 4× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-513 (2000). The new language is identical to that of the FTDA, and accordingly, "the construction given the federal act should be examined as persuasive authority for interpreting and construing [Tennessee antidilution law].”

Calvert Health, LLC v. Four Leaf Liquidators, LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2024). · cites it 2× “21 Similarly, Plaintiff cannot support its state trademark dilution claim (Count V) under T.C.A. § 47-25-513(a), because “the Lanham Act ‘famousness’ factors substantially overlap with Tennessee’s ‘famousness’ evaluation,” and nothing about Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that…”

George Hamilton, V v. Stardust Theatre (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 47-25-513 made no provision for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

SDC Fin., LLC v. Bremer (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “§ 47-25-513(a). The Tennessee state courts have not analyzed this provision, but the federal courts “interchangeably analyze[] the Tennessee and federal antidilution statutes.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513(a) — 5 cases

Samuel Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, The, 545 F. App'x 405 (6th Cir. 2013). “Compare Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-513 (“Injury to business reputation; dilution”), with Ariz.”

Kellogg Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 192 F. Supp. 2d 790 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-513 (2000). The new language is identical to that of the FTDA, and accordingly, "the construction given the federal act should be examined as persuasive authority for interpreting and construing [Tennessee antidilution law].”

Calvert Health, LLC v. Four Leaf Liquidators, LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “21 Similarly, Plaintiff cannot support its state trademark dilution claim (Count V) under T.C.A. § 47-25-513(a), because “the Lanham Act ‘famousness’ factors substantially overlap with Tennessee’s ‘famousness’ evaluation,” and nothing about Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that…”

George Hamilton, V v. Stardust Theatre (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 47-25-513 made no provision for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-513(b) — 1 case

George Hamilton, V v. Stardust Theatre (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 47-25-513 made no provision for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

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.