Budweiser V. Silly Squeakers: A Case Study

1196 Words3 Pages

TO: Senior Partner FROM: Neha Ghauri DATE: September 12, 2017 FILE: Budweiser v. Silly Squeakers, Inc. RE: Dilution by Tarnishment and Parody evaluation Discussion Dilution by Tarnishment Although an argument can be made to show likely harm to Budweiser’s reputation, but as there is no actual evidence presented to prove it, the Court is likely not to find dilution by tarnishment. ‘“Dilution by tarnishment” is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark’ 15 U.S.C. s1125(c)(2)(C) (2006). Four elements must be proven: (1) Plaintiff’s mark is famous (2) Defendant is using a similar mark commercially (3) the similarity between the marks gives rise to an association (4) the association likely harms the reputation of …show more content…

For example, in Louis Vuitton the court found the choices made by the maker of ‘Chewy Vuiton’ dog toys to resemble the shape of a LV handbag, mimicking its colors, designs and the monogram, successfully evoked the famous mark. Id. Further, the designs were not ‘distinguished and detailed’ and by opting to use similar but not the exact name of the brand, like ‘CV’ instead of ‘LV’; it also successfully distinguished itself from the famous mark. Id. Lastly, the Court used LVM’s high-end brand image to imply a mocking affect as the dog toy ‘pokes fun at the elegance and expensiveness’ of LVM products supported by the toys being sold next to parodies of other high-end fashion brands like the ‘chewnal no. 5.’ Id. A parody is not a ‘complete defense’ where the seller uses the mark to sell its own goods. 15 U.S.C. s1125 C (3)(A)(ii) and Louis Vuitton, 507 F. 3d.at 266. In Louis Vuitton, the parody was being used to sell its own goods but the court outlined as it was a successful parody it also successfully communicated it is not linked with the original mark.

Open Document