X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46762 Justice Rudolph PLAINTIFF, INCORPORATED in 1992, sued defendant, incorporated in 2001, for starting a similarly named business. Asserting violations of General Business Law ��133 and 360-1, �43(a) of the Lanham Act and the common law against unfair competition, plaintiff claimed that defendant’s use of “Total Energy” would dilute the distinctive quality of a mark or trade name, cause confusion and unfairly appropriate a special quality attached to its name. The court dismissed plaintiff’s action and deemed defendant to be entitled to damages. It found “Total Energy” to be a generic or descriptive term lacking special qualities providing a secondary meaning, thus depriving the term of protection under GBL �360-1 and the Lanham Act. Despite finding an issue of fact as to defendant’s use of “Total Energy” with an intent to deceive, the court found that plaintiff failed to establish that its “merely descriptive” name had acquired a secondary meaning.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.