Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Seattle Trademark Lawyer
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: Seattle Trademark LawyerCourt Finds Lessened Standard No Excuse for Delaying Dilution Suit
By Michael Atkins
The July 29 Hobbit Travel decision, which the Las Vegas Trademark Attorney discusses comprehensively here, is of particular interest to STL for its treatment of laches in the context of dilution. (STL digs dilution cases.)
In Saul Zaentz Co. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc., the defendant travel agency argued on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment that the plaintiff owner of J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary rights waited too long to sustain its trademark claims. At least 18 years too long.

With regard to dilution, the plaintiff responded that when Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act in 2006 — and lessened the standard of proof from “actual dilution” to “likelihood of dilution” — it provided plaintiff with a fresh cause of action that previously was not available.
The Northern District of California was not impressed.
“This argument is specious. First, Tolkien’s dilution claim, as pled in the complaint, is for actual, not likelihood of dilution. Second, regardless of whether the legal standard required a showing of actual or likelihood of dilution, a federal cause of action for dilution has existed since 1995 when Congress passed the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Under California law, a state cause of action for dilution has existed since 1967. Third, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Moseley requiring a showing of actual dilution, the Ninth Circuit applied a ‘likelihood of dilution’ standard to claims brought under the FTDA.
“In sum, the court concludes that plaintiff’s delay of at least eighteen years is unreasonable. Because the length of delay far exceeds the statute of limitations period, a presumption of laches applies. This presumption is not overcome by any excuses plaintiff offers for its delay.”
The case cite is Saul Zaentz Co. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc., 2008 WL 2949423, No. 06-5421 (N.D. Calif.) (Patel, J.).
Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on August 06, 2008 (boomark / email).
Mesothelioma Law Suit
Asbestos Exposure
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Bank Website Security
New Report Finds Widespread Flaws
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.
Missouri Attorney General's Office
$26,000 settlement reached in disability discrimination lawsuit, pending court approval.

Roof Crush Standard Delayed By NHTSA
Fourth Circuit Finds No Dilution in Chewy Vuiton Case
Geogia Supreme Court Finds Vaccine Suit in Autism Case Not Preempted
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Test for Dilution, Finds that PerfumeBay Dilutes eBay.







