Business Law 3210 Unit II Assessment
Briefing Paper 1: Critical Legal Thinking
Name
School
Author Note
This paper was prepared for Business Law Course, BBA 3210-13N, taught by Professor Name
Abstract
Facts of the Case “Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006”
In 1995, the successful lingerie retail giant, Victoria’s Secret, filed a lawsuit against a little mom and pop store selling adult novelties at a local Louisville, Kentucky strip mall called “Victor’s Little Secret.” Victoria’s Secret who do not like to seen or thought of in such shabby terms insisted that they were suing Victor’s Little Secret for trademark dilution. Because of difficult standard for a plaintiff to prove actual dilution and not just the likelihood of dilution, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in favor of Victor and Cathy Moseley, the owners of Victor’s Little Secret. U.S. Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act in 2006, overturning the Supreme Court decision that sided with the much smaller Victor’s Little Secret. With the new statute revised and in place, it favors the plaintiff to where they no longer had to actual dilution. The revision stated that the plaintiff needed to show that the defendant’s trademark is likely to cause dilution of plaintiff’s trademark. The main purpose of the new statute was not simply to overturn the Supreme Court decision from 2003 that sided with a less powerful and less influential defendant, but instead to clarify the previous Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) of 1995. (Cheeseman, 2013)
Do you think that congress often uses its “veto power” over the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal statute by enacting another statute to change the result of a Supreme Court’s decision?
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA) of 2006 was not congress intention to use veto power over the Supreme Court’s decision that favor the Moseleys over Victoria’s Secret stores, even though it might be seen that way because of the minor in which it was enacted.
Name
School
Author Note
This paper was prepared for Business Law Course, BBA 3210-13N, taught by Professor Name
Abstract
Facts of the Case “Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006”
In 1995, the successful lingerie retail giant, Victoria’s Secret, filed a lawsuit against a little mom and pop store selling adult novelties at a local Louisville, Kentucky strip mall called “Victor’s Little Secret.” Victoria’s Secret who do not like to seen or thought of in such shabby terms insisted that they were suing Victor’s Little Secret for trademark dilution. Because of difficult standard for a plaintiff to prove actual dilution and not just the likelihood of dilution, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in favor of Victor and Cathy Moseley, the owners of Victor’s Little Secret. U.S. Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act in 2006, overturning the Supreme Court decision that sided with the much smaller Victor’s Little Secret. With the new statute revised and in place, it favors the plaintiff to where they no longer had to actual dilution. The revision stated that the plaintiff needed to show that the defendant’s trademark is likely to cause dilution of plaintiff’s trademark. The main purpose of the new statute was not simply to overturn the Supreme Court decision from 2003 that sided with a less powerful and less influential defendant, but instead to clarify the previous Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) of 1995. (Cheeseman, 2013)
Do you think that congress often uses its “veto power” over the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal statute by enacting another statute to change the result of a Supreme Court’s decision?
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA) of 2006 was not congress intention to use veto power over the Supreme Court’s decision that favor the Moseleys over Victoria’s Secret stores, even though it might be seen that way because of the minor in which it was enacted.
References: Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.