Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.77.160 (2025)
Injunctive relief for owners of famous marks
✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The owner of a mark that 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 in this state of a mark, commencing after the mark becomes famous, which 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 famous and has distinctive quality, a court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the following:
(a) The degree or 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 or services with which the mark is used;
(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 mark is used;
(f) 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;
(g) The nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(h) Whether the mark is the subject of state registration in this state or United States registration.
(2) The owner shall be entitled only to injunctive relief 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 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.
(3) The following are not actionable under this section:
(a) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark;
(b) Noncommercial use of a famous mark; and
(c) All forms of reporting and news commentary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Trader Joe's Co. v. Michael Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2016).
Trader Joe's Co. v. Michael Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1125 (c); (5) state trademark dilution, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.77.160 ; and (6) deceptive business practices in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash.”
Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “§ 1125 (c) and the Washington State trademark anti-dilution statute, RCW 19.77.160.” Id. at 1 . E. The Dilution Statutes Have Been Violated by Toeppen.”
eAcceleration Corp. v. Trend Micro, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 1125 (c); state trademark dilution under RCW 19.77.160; state common law and statutory unfair competition.”
Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Pac. Graphics, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D. Wash. 1991). “, and under RCW 19.77.160 and RCW 19.86.020. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.”
Industria de Diseno Textil, SA v. Zara Academy LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00046 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2024). “§ 1125 (c); dilution under the law of Washington, RCW § 19.77.160; 4 unfair and deceptive trade practices under the laws of several states, including 5 Washington, RCW § 19.”
Green Builders LLC v. USA Green Builders Corp., No. 2:24-cv-01469 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2025). “The Court denied that request without 4 prejudice on October 30, 2024 for failure to show proper service under Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 4.”
BBC Grp. NV LLC v. Island Life Restaurant Grp. LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01011 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2019). “21, 2006) (citing RCW 19.77.160(1) and 19.77.010(6)). 20 To prevail on a trademark dilution claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the mark is famous and 21 distinctive; (2) the defendant is making use of the mark in commerce; (3) the defendant’s use 22 began after the mark became…”
New Flyer Indus. Canada ULC v. Rugby Aviation LLC, 405 F. Supp. 3d 886 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “§ 1125 (c), and Washington state law, 23 |lsee RCW 19.77.160, for false designation of origin and unfair competition under the Lanham 24 ||Act, see 15 U.”
Brooks Sports Inc v. Sparc Grp. LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01491 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2021). “§§ 1114 , 1124, under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW §§ 19.77.160, 21 19.86.020, and under Washington common law.”
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Hunt's Plumbing & Mech. LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00285 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2019). “9 Based on this conduct, Beacon asserted five claims for relief: (1) state trademark 10 dilution under RCW 19.77.160; (2) state trademark infringement under RCW 19.”
Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Bosley Inc, No. 2:23-cv-01031 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2023). “§ 1116 (d)(1)); 19 violation of anti-dilution statute (RCW 19.77.160); and federal dilution. Dkt.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.77.160(1): 2 cases
BBC Grp. NV LLC v. Island Life Restaurant Grp. LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01011 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2019). “21, 2006) (citing RCW 19.77.160(1) and 19.77.010(6)). 20 To prevail on a trademark dilution claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) the mark is famous and 21 distinctive; (2) the defendant is making use of the mark in commerce; (3) the defendant’s use 22 began after the mark became…”
New Flyer Indus. Canada ULC v. Rugby Aviation LLC, 405 F. Supp. 3d 886 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “§ 1125 (c), and Washington state law, 23 |lsee RCW 19.77.160, for false designation of origin and unfair competition under the Lanham 24 ||Act, see 15 U.”
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.