1500 amhurst way concord ca

even though there is no confusion as to source." Illinois High School Ass'n, 99 F.3d at 247. Lilly must prove four elements to establish a federal trademark dilution claim: (1) its PROZAC ® mark is famous; (2) Natural Answers adopted its mark after Lilly's mark became famous; (3) Natural Answers diluted Lilly's mark; and (4) Natural Answers' use of its mark is commercial and in commerce. Hampshire Paper Corp., 192 F.3d 633, 639 (7th Cir.1999). These elements are not fundamentally different from those found in most state antidilution statutes.

Jim Henson Productions, Inc., 73 F.3d 497, 506 (2d Cir.1996) (under New York's antidilution statute, the prior user must show both that its mark is distinctive and that there is a "likelihood of dilution"); Hyatt Corp. Hyatt Legal Servs., 736 F.2d 1153, 1157 (7th Cir.1984) (under Illinois Anti-Dilution Act, prior user must "show that the mark is distinctive and that the subsequent user's use dilutes that distinctiveness; neither competition between the users nor confusion need be shown") (footnote omitted). [6] Plaintiff Lilly has shown that it is likely to prevail on this claim by establishing each of the four elements of the federal dilution claim. If Lilly's PROZAC ® mark is famous, Natural Answers plainly adopted its HERBROZAC mark after PROZAC ® became famous, and Natural Answers uses its HERBROZAC mark in commerce and for commercial purposes. Natural Answers contends, however, that PROZAC ® is not famous and that the HERBROZAC mark causes no dilution of the PROZAC ® mark. Section 43(c) (1) of the Lanham Act provides a non-exclusive list of eight factors relevant to whether a mark is distinctive and famous: *848 (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (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; (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 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. The court considers these factors in turn, but will try to avoid undue repetition where they duplicate the analysis of factors for likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement. The bottom line here is that PROZAC ® is the archetype of a "famous" mark for these purposes. In considering whether a mark is "famous," the court must first determine whether the mark is "distinct." It is possible for a mark to be famous but not distinct.

Examples of famous but non-distinct marks are "American," "First," "Federal," or "National." Nabisco, Inc. As the court found in Nabisco, the "most distinctive are marks that are entirely the product of the imagination . The strongest protection of the trademark laws is reserved for these most highly distinctive marks." Id. PROZAC ® is a fanciful word that carries no meaning apart from its use to identify Lilly's product. It does not describe or suggest the function of the product it names. This fact weighs heavily in favor of finding that the PROZAC ® mark is distinct. Natural Answers disputes the distinctiveness of the PROZAC ® mark by breaking down the word PROZAC ® into two syllables. Natural Answer argues that PROZAC ® is not a distinctive mark because the syllables "pro" and "zac" have been used in a number of other product names, including other Lilly products. By breaking down the PROZAC ® mark into two syllables, however, Natural Answers' argument does not accurately reflect the letters that are shared by both marks. HERBROZAC and PROZAC ® do not share only the three letter syllable "zac." Five of the six letters in the PROZAC ® mark are contained in the HERBROZAC mark. Natural Answers merely dropped the "P" from PROZAC ® and substituted the word "HERB." Putting that fact aside, however, the primary problem with Natural Answers' argument is that the distinctiveness of the two separate syllables in the PROZAC ® mark is not the issue here. The question is whether the PROZAC ® mark as a whole is distinctive. Natural Answers has not pointed to any court decisions analyzing a mark's distinctiveness by breaking it down in the manner Natural Answers suggests. The PROZAC ® mark as a whole is an arbitrary and fanciful name that does not describe the function of the product it names, and is thus a highly distinctive mark. This distinctiveness weighs in favor of finding PROZAC ® to be a famous mark. Natural Answers also argues that the trademark PROZAC ® has become generic and is thus not a distinct name. A trademark becomes "generic" when it describes a class or a group of products rather than an individual product. As discussed above, however, there is no evidence that PROZAC ® has become a victim of "genericide." The media references before the court do not use the *849 PROZAC ® mark in a generic way. They use the term only to identify Lilly's product. (B) Duration and Extent of Use of the PROZAC ® Mark in Connection with Fluoxetine Hydrochloride. Lilly has used the PROZAC ® mark since 1988 to market fluoxetine hydrochloride. The name is a fanciful one created by Lilly for the purpose of marketing this drug.

There is no evidence before the court that Lilly has itself used or permitted the use of the PROZAC ® mark on any product other than fluoxetine hydrochloride. (C) Duration and Extent of the Advertising and Publicity of the PROZAC ® Mark. This factor considers how long a mark has been in use and how much advertising and publicity the mark has garnered during its life. Natural Answers argues that the eleven years the PROZAC ® mark has been in use is too short a time to establish "fame" for purposes of the Dilution Act. Natural Answers points to two decisions in which courts held that product names with longer life spans were not "famous" for dilution purposes. 1012, 1022 (N.D.Ill.1998) (mark in use for 17 years held not famous); Michael Caruso & Co., Inc. 1454, 1463 (S.D.Fla.1998) (mark in use for 15 years held not famous).

There is no arbitrary minimum time, however, for proving fame for these purposes, nor did the courts in those cases suggest that there is. Consider, for example, the extraordinary speed with which some commercial names associated with the Internet have become famous in the last few years. The duration of the use of the PROZAC ® mark is only part of the analysis. The court must also consider the extent of the advertising and publicity the mark received during its life. In S Industries, the plaintiff "presented no evidence of any substantial publicity or advertising, other than two catalogs, a few advertising contracts with retailers, and three solicitation letters .

Menu

Get in touch