ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Seattle Trademark Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Court Finds Lessened Standard No Excuse for Delaying Dilution Suit

By Michael Atkins

ADVERTISEMENTS

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).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0046 secs (from cache 10/31/26 04:20:20)