Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Harland Co., 711 F.2d at 973 . 34 . Id. at 974 . 35 . Id. 36 . See note 14, supra. 37 . Southern Monorail Co., 666 F.2d at 186 . 38 . Geo. Washington Mint, Inc. v. Washington Mint, Inc., 349 F.Supp. 255 (S.D.N.Y.1972), cited in 2 j. McCarthy, § 30.15. 39 . FLA.STAT.ANN. § 495.151 (West 1984)....

...ellants") for infringement and dilution of an unregistered trademark under Section 43(a) and (c) of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (1994) ("Lanham Act"), and for violation of Florida's unfair competition law. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 495.151 (West 2000)....

...se in connection with e-mail services. Planetary alleged federal trademark infringement and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as injury to business reputation and dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151. On June 10, 1999, Techsplosion filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims....

...B. Attorney Fees Awards of attorney fees are reviewable only to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying them.32 See St. Charles Mfg. Co. v. Mercer, 737 F.2d 891, 894 (11th Cir.1983). Fla. Stat. § 495.151 provides for injunctive relief only....

...consumers would confuse the two marks. 2 These state-law claims were for deceptive and unfair trade practices under Fla. Stat. ch. 501, false advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41, unfair competition under Florida common law, dilution under Fla. Stat. § 495.151, and dilution under Florida common law. 3  This Court considers the following seven factors in assessing whether or not a likelihood of consumer confusion exists: 1....

...Singleton, 1 from using the Singleton name in the shrimp trade. Conagra, as a successor in interest to the trademark rights of Singleton Packing Corporation, brought the instant action under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1125 ), Florida’s common law of unfair competition, and Fla.Stat. § 495.151, which prohibits unfair competition and dilution of an established trade name....

...��) for infringement and dilution of an unregistered trademark under Section 43(a) and (c) of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (1994) (“Lanham Act”), and for violation of Florida’s unfair competition law. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 495.151 (West 2000). Finding that Planetary Motion had established priority of use and a likelihood of confusion, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered summary judgment in favor of Planetary Motion....

...“Coolmail” for use in connection with e-mail services. Planetary alleged federal trademark infringement and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as injury to business reputation and dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151. On June 10, 1999, Techsplosion filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims....

...Attorney Fees Awards of attorney fees are reviewable only to determine if the trial court 33 abused its discretion in granting or denying them.32 See St. Charles Mfg. Co. v. Mercer, 737 F.2d 891, 894 (11th Cir. 1983). Fla. Stat. § 495.151 provides for injunctive relief only....

...Weighing these factors together, we conclude that they clearly show that there likely will be confusion in Discount’s use of the word Safeway. We therefore hold that Discount violated the Lanham Act in its use of the word. B. Florida Law We also believe that Discount violated Florida law in its use of the word Safeway. Section 495.151, Florida Statutes Annotated, states that any person using a mark or trade name may sue a subsequent user of the mark or name....

...A court may enjoin a subsequent user if it appears “that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark [or] name . . . notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services.” Commenting on Section 495.151, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that the statute, as its language suggests, eliminates the common law requirements of proof of competition and of confusion....

...hat we have found in the designs in which the parties use the word, we believe that Discount’s use would likely cause dilution. One final hurdle remains for Safeway Stores. Although it need not show competition or confusion to prove a violation of Section 495.151, it still must show prior use in Florida....

...pe of a business in order to determine whether there was any competition with *1168 or confusion between a prior user of a trade name and a subsequent user. Absent overlap in territorial scope, there was no unfair use of a prior user’s trade name. Section 495.151 appears to have eliminated the need for inquiry into territorial scope, requiring only investigation into prior use in state....

...§ 495.131 (West 1988) 9 and pursue remedies under FLA.STAT.ANN. § 495.141 (West 1988). Common law owners of unregistered marks are limited to common law remedies in infringement actions. The Florida statute also permits an “antidilution” claim under section 495.151....

...The district court erred in failing to distinguish between an infringement action and a dilution action. The district court relied upon and misinterpreted a passage from Abner’s Beef House Corp. v. Abner’s Int’l, Inc., 227 So.2d 865 (Fla.1969). In full, this passage states: F.S., Section 495.151, F.S.A., does, however, obviate the necessity in an injunction suit to enjoin a subsequent use of a similar mark that plaintiff show there is competition between the parties or a confusion as to the source of goods and services, which showing was a requisite under the common law. See El Modello Cigar Manufacturing Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 886 , 7 So. 23 , 6 L.R.A. 823 [1890]. Id. at 866 . The court in Abner’s Beef House was discussing Florida’s antidilution statute, section 495.151, which by its plain language eliminates the requirement of competition in a dilution action....

...Counts I and II allege unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and the common law, respectively. Count III seeks a declaration that Tally-Ho’s state registration is invalid. Count IV alleges violation of Florida's antidilution statute, FLA.STAT. § 495.151 (1988)....

...or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement of the prior user, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. FLA.STAT.ANN. § 495.151 (West 1988)....

...ole proprietor of Freedom Realty Company, alleging that Way had infringed its servicemark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114 (1963), and had committed unfair labor practices under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125 (1982) and “dilution” under FLA. STAT. § 495.151 (1972) by using the Freedom Realty name....

...Freedom Savings, however, does not complain of any conduct by Way not considered already in the infringement claim. Because Freedom Savings offers nothing new to include in the broadened unfair competition inquiry, we will affirm the district court’s holding on this issue. III. Dilution A Florida statute, Section 495.151, expands the protections of trademark law by preventing persons from “diluting” the distinctiveness and value of a trademark by using it on products and services completely different from the original product or service....

...Those claims were for (1) dilution of a famous trademark through tarnishment; (2) dilution of a famous trademark through blurring; (3) tortious interference with business relationships and prospective business relationships, and (4) dilution in violation of Florida Statute § 495.151. 6 court concluded that Southern Grouts’ unfair competition and cybersquatting claims were barred by laches and also were without merit....

...Unfair Competition, False Designation & Dilution 152 Dynascan also presents an allegation of false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125 (a), state law causes of action for dilution, pursuant to Fla.Stat. Sec. 495.151, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to Fla.Stat....

...459 , 470 (S.D.Fla.1980). This Court's analysis is therefore equally conclusive of these issues. 153 Finally, Dynascan is entitled to relief under the state cause of action for dilution. See Jaguar Cars Ltd. v. Skandrani, 771 F.Supp. 1178, 1185 (S.D.Fla.1991). Section 495.151 provides that any person using a mark is entitled to an injunction enjoining: 154 Subsequent use by another of the same or similar mark if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. 155 Fla.Stat. Sec. 495.151....

...trademarks, asserting six claims for relief: (1) federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) federal unfair competition, also under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Florida trademark dilution and injury to business reputation, Fla. Stat. § 495.151; (4) Florida trademark infringement, Fla....

...ark dilution claim, which required FIU to prove that FNU’s conduct likely diluted its “famous” marks. See 10  Case: 15-11509 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Page: 11 of 50 Fla. Stat. § 495.151. The court determined that FIU’s marks were famous within the meaning of § 495.151....

...ignoring evidence of their “commercial strength”; and, finally, it could not logically have found that FIU’s mark was weak in light of the court’s subsequent conclusion that it was “famous” within the meaning of the Florida Anti-Dilution Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.151....

...when, on the one hand, it found that FIU’s word mark was relatively weak but, on the other hand, in a subsequent assessment of FIU’s state law trademark dilution claim, determined that the mark was “famous” within the meaning of the Florida Anti-Dilution Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.151....

...television on a Saturday afternoon would think that those names lack recognition in the marketplace of post-secondary education. 29  Case: 15-11509 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Page: 30 of 50 495.151(1)....

...with its conclusion that FIU’s word mark is “relatively weak,” particularly because the main factor the court relied on in finding that the mark was relatively weak -- the extent of third-party use -- also cuts against a finding of fame. See Fla. Stat. § 495.151(1)(g)....

...07/26/2016 Page: 31 of 50 support of its fame finding -- duration and extent of use, duration and extent of advertising, and federal registration -- and ignored the other five factors identified by the state legislature in the statute. See id. § 495.151(a) (distinctiveness of mark in Florida); id. § 495.151(d) (geographic area in which mark is used); id. § 495.151(e) (trade channels); id. § 495.151(f) (degree of recognition); id. § 495.151(g) (third-party use)....

...The Florida trademark dilution statute provides a cause of action for owners of marks that are “famous in [Florida]” against defendants whose “use of a mark or trade name . . . is likely to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark.” Fla. Stat. § 495.151(1)....

...ng permanent injunction prohibiting the use of the Scourby name and phrase "Authorized Alexander Scourby's Latest Narration by CDI, CD, Turney and ICC pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) of the Lanham Act, Florida Statute § 540.08, and Florida Statute § 495.151, on the ground that such Defendants continue to use or authorize the use of the name and phrase in derogation of the jury's verdict....

...ndants' profits is equitable. Lanham Act Defendants also argue that the award of all CDI profit, $1,070,581 in Count I and an award against Turney and CDI for $299,658 in Count II are duplicative. Count II was an action brought under Florida Statute § 495.151 (1989) for injury to Plaintiffs' business reputation caused by the unauthorized use of Alexander Scourby's name....

...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED. . Since instituting this action in 1982, Isaly has changed its name to AmBrit, Inc. We shall refer to the company as "Isaly” throughout this opinion. . 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). . 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1). . Fla.Stat. § 495.151 et seq....

...and false description of goods under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a),(c). Carnival also states claims under Florida common law for unfair competition and trademark infringement, as well as for trademark dilution under Florida Statute section 495.151....

...distinctive and famous). [6] While Tally-Ho involved a claim for dilution under Florida law, the same principles apply to a federal dilution action. [7] This conclusion also applies to the Plaintiff's claim under the Florida Dilution Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.151....

...Florida law applies many of the same factors used under the FTDA to assess whether a trademark is sufficiently distinctive. See id. at 470. Therefore, under the same analysis used above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's mark is not sufficiently distinctive to merit protection. Under section 495.151, a violation can also be based on a likelihood of injury to business reputation....

...2 *1168 These two counts were based on defendants efforts to retain Richards Manufacturing Company and Visual Effects, Inc., to manufacture lamps that were identical to Bauer’s neo-classic line of lamps. Count III sought damages for slander. Count IV claimed dilution of trademark under Fla. Stat.Ann. section 495.151 3 and sections 501.201-501.213 4 (West 1982)....

...he locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation. Id. 3 .Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 (West 1982) provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions, to enjoi...

...ly compete with appellant because appellant never owned a protectable interest in the mark, “Investacorp”, and appellee is entitled to judgment. Affirmed. . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). . Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (1988). . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 (West 1988)....

MILLER, Judge: This appeal is from a judgment for appel-lee, following a bench trial, on Count II of appellant’s amended complaint, 1 seeking in-junctive relief under Florida Statutes § 495.151 2 for injury to business reputation and dilution of the distinctive quality of appellant’s service mark....

...Holiday Out in America, 481 F.2d 445 [ 178 USPQ 257 ] (5th Cir. 1973) (holding Florida’s antidilution statute not applicable due to lack of confusion in the marks themselves). The dispositive issue is whether the district court erred in denying appellant relief under Florida Statutes § 495.151, notwithstanding that the marks of the parties are “similar,” because there is no confusion as to the marks themselves....

...Appellant does not argue on appeal Counts I (alleging infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ) and III (alleging unfair competition under common law). The action was brought in federal district court under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 . 2 . Section 495.151 provides, in pertinent part: Every person .....

...has asserted in Counts Four and Five of its First Amended Complaint. Count Four raises a civil theft claim under Fla.Stat. § 812.035(7), for violation of Fla.Stat. § 812.014. Count Five is a claim under Florida's "anti-dilution" Statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...§§ 1051-1127 ("Lanham Act"); (2) unfair competition in violation of section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) trademark dilution in violation of both section § 1125(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ("Federal Dilution Act"), and Fla.Stat. § 495.151 ("Florida Dilution Act"); and (4) common law unfair competition....

...The Florida Dilution Act permits a court to enjoin the user of the "same or similar mark ... if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...II is GRANTED. Y. Count III: Florida Trademark Dilution and Injury to Business Reputation With this claim, FIU alleges that FNU has wrongly diluted the distinctiveness of the FIU marks by using a confusingly similar mark, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151 [D.E....

...by the mark’s *1287 owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (g) The nature and extent of use of the same or similar mark by third parties; and (h) Whether the mark is the subject of a Florida or federal registration. Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (l)(a)-(h)....

...One alleged instance of confusion involved “someone in the community” who approached an FIU employee, who then reported the exchange to Paz. Id. at 57-58. The Court does not credit Paz’s hearsay statements. . Effective January 1, 2007, the Florida Legislature amended Fla. Stat. § 495.151 to track 15 U.S.C....

...AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED. 1 . Since instituting this action in 1982, Isaly has changed its name to AmBrit, Inc. We shall refer to the company as "Isaly" throughout this opinion. 2 . 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a). 3 . 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1). 4 . Fla.Stat. § 495.151 et seq....

...[18] This statute explicitly provides for a court's imposition of injunctive relief upon a showing that there exists a likelihood (1) of injury to a plaintiff's business reputation or (2) of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. Fla.Stat. ch. 495.151....

...ds. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith. Paris Convention, art. 6 bis, 21 U.S.T. 1583. [18] Florida Statute § 495.151 provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions, to enjoin subsequent...

...or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement of the prior user, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla.Stat. ch. 495.151 (1995)....

...§ 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that defendant has engaged in unfair competition and trade name and service mark infringement under the common law; and that defendant has violated the Florida anti-dilution statute, Florida Statute § 495.151....

...So.2d at 445-446. For reasons stated above, plaintiff has met its burden on this claim as well and is entitled to injunctive relief. DILUTION Finally, plaintiff has a claim for dilution of its trade name and service mark pursuant to Florida Statute § 495.151. This court may award relief pursuant to § 495.151 if the plaintiff has proved: that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the *487 distinctive quality of the mark [or] name ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...manent injunction for defendant's violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); for defendant's acts of unfair competition, trade name, and service mark infringement under common law; and for defendant's violation of Florida Statute § 495.151....

...First Southern Bank opened for business in September 1987; Great Southern Bank opened for business in April 1989, twenty miles away, and was sued by First Southern Bank for common-law trade name infringement, common-law unfair competition, and violation of section 495.151, Florida Statutes *466 (1989) (Florida's dilution [1] statute)....

...El Tio Pepe de Miami Restaurant, Inc., 523 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 534 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1988), to the extent that it uses a simpler test of infringement. III. Dilution Dilution is an action unknown under the Act. As a result, a number of states have adopted dilution statutes, and Florida's section 495.151 is one. Dilution differs from infringement in that it does not necessarily depend on either competing goods or likelihood of confusion. A violation of section 495.151 [18] is for the court to determine, based on either 1) a likelihood of injury to business reputation or 2) dilution of the distinctive quality of the trade name. § 495.151....

...We adopt these principles expressed in the Restatement as appropriate for resolution of a dilution action in Florida. For the judge's findings on one or both of these factors to be upheld, they must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. [21] The trial judge found that a violation of section 495.151 occurred....

...scriptive, geographic or generic name." Because we find as a matter of law that the name is merely descriptive, and therefore lacks the "distinctive quality" that the dilution statute is designed to protect, there is no possibility of a violation of section 495.151 unless a "distinctive quality" has arisen because the name has acquired a secondary meaning....

...[15] See also Restatement §§ 20-23. [16] § 495.021, Fla. Stat. (1989). See 2 McCarthy on Trademarks § 23.24[1][b] (the Lanham Act test of registration is the same as infringement: likelihood of confusion). [17] § 495.131, Fla. Stat. (1989). [18] Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant in...

...BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ocean's three-count complaint against defendants alleges (1) misrepresentation of its trademark and trade name in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1988), the codification of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act; [1] (2) injury to business reputation in violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151 (1989); and (3) dilution of trademark and trade name in violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151 (1989)....

...2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273-74 (1986)), reh'g en banc denied, 887 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir.1989). Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Count I of Ocean's complaint. D. Florida Antidilution Statute. In addition to its Lanham Act claim, Ocean brings two claims under section 495.151 of the Florida Statutes, for dilution of its trademark and for injury to its business reputation....

...cing Law Institute 1988). [9] Although some courts have treated claims under the Lanham Act and the Florida antidilution statute as coextensive, it is clear that the Florida statute involves a different inquiry. See Tally-Ho, Inc., 889 F.2d at 1025 (§ 495.151 eliminates need to show competition between parties or confusion about source of goods or services, as required under Lanham Act or for common law trademark infringement) (quoting Abner's Beef House Corp....

...Title 17, U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., the Lanham Trademark Act, Title 15, U.S.C. § 1125(a), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.Stat. § 501.201 et seq., the Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution of Trademark Law, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 and the common law of the State of Florida....

...Title 15, U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1125(a) authorize the issuance of injunctive relief for activities likely to create confusion among the public as to the origin or source of the plaster molds. *1482 24. An injunction may issue for violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151, Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution of Trademark, § 495.151....

...(2) for statutory damages for infringement of a registered service mark under section 495.131, Florida Statutes, and (3) for injunctive relief from injury to business reputation and dilution of service mark, tradename and form of advertisement under section 495.151, Florida Statutes....

...In count three it is alleged that by virtue of the facts alleged in counts one and two there exists a likelihood of injury to plaintiff's business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of plaintiff's service mark, tradename and form of advertisement and that the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief under section 495.151, Florida Statutes....

...origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) (Count II), and that its trademark has been diluted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c) (Count III). Plaintiff also brings claims for injury to business reputation and dilution pursuant to Florida Statutes § 495.151 (Count IV), trademark infringement of an unregistered mark under Flori *1352 da common law (Count V), and unfair competition under Florida common law (Count VI)....

...Alleging a confusion similarity between Taxor’s T-WATCH and its SWATCH Watch, Swatch brought suit against Taxor for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 , unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and Florida common law, and dilution under Florida Statute 495.151....

...Section 495.131, F.S.A., which provides infringement of a registered mark shall subject the infringer to the liability of a civil action by the owner of the mark and to the injunctive and damage remedies of F.S. Section 495.141, F.S.A., is made subject to the common law rights in marks preserved by Section 495.161. F.S. Section 495.151, F.S.A., does, however, obviate the necessity in an injunction suit to enjoin a subsequent use of a similar mark that plaintiff show there is competition between parties or a confusion as to the source of goods or services, which showing was a requisite under the common law....

...f action under Section 501.204, Florida Statutes. In addition, the Court's finding that it is not likely the Suave shoe would be confused with a Brooks shoe means the Plaintiff has failed to prove a violation of Florida's dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...§ 1114(1) Count II: use of false designation of origins, false descriptions and false representations (i.e., trade dress infringement) under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Count III: common law unfair competition Count IV: common law palming off Count V: state trademark dilution under Florida Statutes § 495.151 Count VI: violation of a non-compete agreement under Florida Statutes § 542.33 Count VII: violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act under Florida Statutes § 688.001....

...vidence available at this time. For similar reasons, ICAA has not established a likelihood of success on the merits on its common law unfair competition and common law palming off claims. In addressing state trademark dilution under Florida Statutes § 495.151, the Eleventh Circuit has noted: Dilution, like unfair competition, is a broader claim than infringement....

...NOTES [1] The Plaintiff entered into a service agreement when it registered its domain names. The service agreement incorporated the ICANN Policy. [2] The trademark dilution counterclaim alleged state law violation is predicated upon Fla. Stat. Ann. § 495.151; the alleged violation of Florida's consumer protection law is based upon Fla....

...§ 1125(a); (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, id.; (3) violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, id. § 1125(d); (4) unfair competition under Florida law; (5) violation of Florida’s trademark dilution statute, Fla. Stat. § 495.151; and (6) violation of Florida’s “Antiphising Act,” Fla. Stat....

...: (1) Service mark infringement, tradename infringement, false designation, and false representation, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) Trade name infringement, misappropriation of business reputation and dilution, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151; and (3) Unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and false and misleading statements, in violation of Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), Fla....

...(A-B Distributors), for federal and state trademark infringement and unfair trade practices, in violation of the Trademark Act of 1946 (commonly known as the Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., specifically §§ 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a), Florida's anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151, and Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices act, Fla.Stat....

...t, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) [Count III]; federal dilution of trademark in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) [Count IV]; Florida common law unfair competition [Count V]; Florida trademark dilution in violation of Section 495.151, Florida Statutes [Count VI]; and unauthorized publication of name and likeness in violation of Section 540.08, Florida Statutes (Florida's "Right of Publicity" statute) [Count VII]....

...competition. Florida's Anti-Dilution Statute protects against "dilution of the distinctive quality of the trademark ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to source of goods or services." Fla.Code Ann., § 495.151....

...Inc. v. Holiday Out In America, 481 F.2d 445, 450 (5th Cir.1973). Because the defendants' use of "Mister Chassis" dilutes the value and uniqueness of plaintiffs' "Chassis Master" mark, defendants are also guilty of trademark dilution in violation of Section 495.151, Florida Statutes....

...Limelite Rentals later merged into Limelite Studios. In May 1989 Limelight Productions began this action alleging federal service mark infringement, false designation of origin and description of goods under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, trademark dilution under Fla.Stat. § 495.151, and common law trademark infringement....

...change. Any hardship that may result in changing names now is the result of Iron Eagle's insistence on retaining a name it knew was claimed by Plaintiffs. The equities are in Plaintiffs' favor. Dilution [8] Florida's Antidilution Statute, Fla. Stat. § 495.151, allows the Court to enjoin subsequent use of the same or similar mark if the Plaintiff proves: that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla. Stat. § 495.151....

...Babbit is therefore liable for trademark counterfeiting. 4. Unfair Competition, False Designation & Dilution Dynascan also presents an allegation of false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), state law causes of action for dilution, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 495.151, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to Fla.Stat....

...459, 470, 1980 WL 30222 (S.D.Fla.1980). This Court's analysis is therefore equally conclusive of these issues. Finally, Dynascan is entitled to relief under the state cause of action for dilution. See Jaguar Cars Ltd. v. Skandrani, 771 F.Supp. 1178, 1185 (S.D.Fla.1991). Section 495.151 provides that any person using a mark is entitled to an injunction enjoining: Subsequent use by another of the same or similar mark ......

...if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...(collectively "Cotton Gin"). Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' unauthorized use of the mark "Cotton Gin" and imitation of Cotton Ginny trade dress constitute violations of sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1)(a), 1125(a) (1982), as well as § 495.151 of the Florida Statutes and common law rights. Defendants have counterclaimed asserting that Plaintiff has infringed their rights under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as state, Fla.Sta.Ann. § 495.151 (West 1972), and common law....

...Beach. Appellants, defendants below, are the owners and developers of "Congress Park" which is an office building complex located on Congress Avenue in Riviera Beach. Appellees filed a two-count complaint alleging in count I a cause of action under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1985), and in *625 count II an action for common law unfair competition....

...After a hearing on the motion a temporary injunction was granted and bond was set at $500,000. This appeal followed. The trial court did not find it necessary to consider the common law tort of unfair competition. Relief was predicated solely upon section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides: Injury to Business Reputation; Dilution....

...ngs and Loan, 757 F.2d at 1186. In view of the above, we conclude that there was a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive quality of appellees' trade name, and therefore the trial court did not err in granting the temporary injunction pursuant to section 495.151, Florida Statutes....

...In its order granting the temporary injunction, the court states that "there exists a likelihood of injury to Plaintiffs' business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiffs' trade names... ." (Emphasis added.) Since this language simply quotes from section 495.151, we conclude that the order is not in error, although we also conclude that there was no showing of a likelihood of injury to appellees' business reputation....

...§ 1125 (a); (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) et seq.; (3) violating the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.131 et seq.; (4) violating the Florida Trademarlc Dilution Act, Fla. Stat. § 495.151 ; (5) violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla....

...e name "Casa Marina" in connection with their condominium development business. Upon a holding that Cayo Hueso, Ltd., (CHL), owner of the Casa Marina Hotel, presented sufficient competent substantial evidence to warrant injunctive relief pursuant to Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1977), we affirm....

...ause of the delay in getting construction under way. In addition, the public has associated the idle condominium development with a golf course project undertaken by some principals of CHL which project is totally unrelated to the Casa Marina Hotel. Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1977) protects a prior user of a trade name from injury to business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality of the trade name. To establish a prior use under Section 495.151 it is not necessary that a party register its trade name, [1] Safeway Stores, Inc....

...Casa Marina is not a generic term and thus is subject to appropriation. Compare, e.g., Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc. v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors Southeast, Inc., 355 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We hold that CHL has established a valid prior use of a trade name protectable under Section 495.151....

...[2] Indeed, in Shupe, also a suit between a hotel operator and a real estate developer, our supreme court said, "We cannot see how the public could be deceived by appellees' use of the title `Suncoast' when there is no similarity in the businesses of the parties." Shupe, supra, at 805. However, Section 495.151, enacted after Shupe, see Junior Food Stores of West Florida, Inc....

...t trial, CHL has shown not only a likelihood of injury to business reputation but also actual injury to business reputation. Consequently, we affirm the judgment *778 of the trial court and find it unnecessary to discuss the anti-dilution portion of Section 495.151 or the other grounds for injunctive relief raised by the complaint....

...NOTES [1] It should be noted that neither party to this suit was a registrant pursuant to Chapter 495, Florida Statutes. [2] CHL has not yet begun its planned condominium development next to the Casa Marina. [3] Quite arguably, the justices who decided Shupe might have decided our case differently even prior to enactment of Section 495.151....

...efendant Patrick Taylor, d/b/a AAA Rainbird Connection ("Taylor") (Doc. 1). Rain Bird asserts claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 et seq., Florida common law, the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act ("FRPTA"), Fla. Stat. § 495.151, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Fla....

...actions. See Tally-Ho, Inc., 889 F.2d at 1024. The legal standards for Florida statutory and common law claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act (FRPTA), Florida Statutes § 495.151, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Florida Statutes § 501.204, are the same as those for federal claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition....

...(Investcorp) E.C., 931 F.2d 1519, 1521 (11th Cir.1991)); see also Victoria's Cyber Secret Ltd. Partnership v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1355-56 (S.D.Fla.2001). F. Dilution under Florida Statutes (Counts VI and VII) The FRPTA and FDUTPA also permit an antidilution claim under Florida Statutes § 495.151 and § 501.204, respectively....

...Count IX—Florida Trademark Dilution 74. Unlike federal trademark dilution (at least since Moseley ), a claim for dilution under Florida law requires only "a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." Fla. Stat. § 495.151. See Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Tortoise Island Realty, Inc., 790 So.2d 525, 534 (2001). 75. Also unlike the federal trademark dilution statute, the Florida antidilution statute is not limited to "famous" marks. See Fla. Stat. § 495.151....

...§ 1125(a); Count 2 — infringement of registered trademarks covering Isaly's label and package designs in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a); Count 3 — common law unfair competition; Count 4 — dilution of Isaly's trade dress rights in violation of Florida Statute Section 495.151 et seq.; and Count 5 — statutory unfair competition in violation of Florida Statute Section 501.201, et seq....

...It complained of infringement of services and trade marks, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116, 1117 and 1118. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant engaged in unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Third, plaintiff brought a pendant state claim for dilution of its service mark under Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...nctive relief under federal law. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on its infringement claim. IV. STATE LAW: DILUTION Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of the "SUNBRELLA" trademark dilutes its own use of the mark. Section 495.151, Florida Statutes, provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctio...

...g a relatively high level of imagination. It has been advertised extensively for several years and has been used for thirty or more years. The Court finds that Plaintiff's mark is a highly distinctive one and is entitled to protection from dilution. Section 495.151 requires a showing of either a likelihood of injury to business reputation or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark....

...The question, then, is why the last paragraph was not included. There also is the question of how the phrase "particular class of purchasers" should be interpreted and applied to the facts of this case. The Court is not aware of any guidance in this area in cases interpreting Section 495.151....

...distinctive one. However, a literal reading may be inconsistent with the policy concerns underlying the dilution statute. Until the Court is able to determine whether the "class of purchasers" requirement should be applied to a dilution claim under Section 495.151, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its dilution claim....

...knowledge of registrant's prior use; (6) prior use of non registered users marks; (7) used to violate antitrust laws of U.S.; (8) mark is functional; and (9) equitable principles, including laches, estoppel and acquiescence are applicable. [3] F.S. § 495.151 Every person, association, or union of workers adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions, to enjoin subsequent use by anoth...

...§ 1125(a) (Count I); (2) federal common law unfair competition (Count II); (3) federal common law service mark infringement (Count III); (4) Florida common law service mark infringement (Count IV); (5) Florida common law unfair competition (Count V); and (6) violation of the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 (Count VI)....

...Plaintiff's Claim Under the Lanham Act and its Florida Common Law and Statutory Claims The remainder of plaintiff's amended complaint consists of claims under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Florida's common law of trademark infringement and unfair competition, and Florida's anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...n support, PODS points out that it prevailed on its federal and Florida dilution claims. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c)(1) (“Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark ... shall be entitled to an injunction ... ”); Fla. Stat. § '495.151 (“The owner of á mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction ......

...y the jury, which is well below the damages suggested by Dr. Winer. . U-Haul also challenges the damages awarded based on the Florida dilution statute (Count V), as PODS did not register its trademarks in Florida until August 4, 2014. See Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (2) ("[T]he owner of a famous mark ......

...nation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II); (3) false advertising in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count III); (4) trademark infringement in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151, et seq., (Count IV); (5) misleading advertising in violation of Fla....

...COUNT VII—INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION AND DILUTION OF TRADEMARK UNDER FLORIDA LAW Count VII alleges that the defendants have caused injury to Merisant's business reputation and/or alternatively, caused dilution of the distinctive quality of Merisant's trademarks in violation Fla. Stat. § 495.151, Florida's anti-dilution statute....

...that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla.Stat. § 495.151 Under Florida's statute, neither confusion nor competition are necessary....

...§ 1141 (l)(a); Count IV, Federal Trademark Dilution, Lanham Act 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c); Count V, Common Law Trademark Infringement; Count VI, Federal Copyright Infringement, Art. 5, Sec. 1 of the Berne Convention and 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a); Count VII, Trademark Dilution, Fla Stat. § 495.151 et seq.; Count 'VIII, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Fla....

...ation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ("Count II"), (3) false advertising in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ("Count III"); (4) trademark infringement in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151, et seq....

...cts. Defendant began in October, 1985, to market a rodenticide known as "FINAL FLIP." Plaintiff has sued defendant for trademark infringement and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), violation of the Florida anti-dilution statute, § 495.151, Fla.Stats., and for common law unfair competition and trademark infringement....

...or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation." Additionally, Plaintiff relies upon the Florida anti-dilution statute, § 495.151, Fla....

...No evidence of any confusion in the marketplace has been shown by plaintiff. The Court here notes that plaintiff has not met the "likelihood of success on the merits" requirement for preliminary injunction as to its federal trademark claim. Neither has it met the above requirement on its anti-dilution claim under § 495.151....

...§ 1125 (a) (Count II), common law unfair competition (Count III), violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (Count IV); statutory injury to business reputation and dilution pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (Count V), common law unjust enrichment (Count VI); misappropriation and conversion (Count VII), tortious interference (Count VIII), and declaratory and supplemental relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C....

...r failing to join Pernix is denied. See supra note 2. B. Stating a Cause of Action Counts I, II and V. Defendants argue Counts I and II (Plaintiffs Lanham Act claims) and Count V (injury to business reputation and dilution in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151 , the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act) should be dismissed for lack of standing because Aceto is not the “owner” of the Quatrefolic Mark....

...ection 495.181, directs that the federal cases be given great weight when construing chapter 495." In that case, First Southern Bank sued the Great Southern Bank for common law trade name infringement, common law unfair competition, and violation of section 495.151 (the anti-dilution statute adopted by the Florida Legislature)....

..., or whether Realty was the community's exclusive agent. [3] Even Realty's own witness, Alyea, testified she had several customers who thought Realty was the exclusive agent for the community. In addition, the Association is entitled to relief under section 495.151, Florida Statutes, even if it had failed to establish a basis under trademark name infringement grounds. The statute provides: 495.151....

...The trial court also denied plaintiff's dilution claim because the parties "[were] engaged in offering identical services to the public in separate locations separated by a substantial geographical distance." This conclusion contains erroneous statements of the law, also warranting reversal. Florida's anti-dilution statute, section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1985), protects a prior user of a mark against a subsequent user of the same or similar mark "if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark,......

...& Loan Ass'n v. Orondorff, 678 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir.1982) (anti-dilution statute provided relief to a savings and loan association, the prior user of the service mark "Cookie Jar," enjoining subsequent use of *1161 the mark by a topless go-go bar), section 495.151 has also been invoked where the prior and subsequent users provided identical services, Chassis Master, 610 F....

...n and False Designation of Origin under the Lanham Act by all Defendants; Count VIII, Federal Dilution under the Lanham Act by all Defendants; Count DC, Common Law Unfair Competition by all Defendants; Count X, Florida Dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151 by all Defendants; Count XI, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Fla....

...Background Plaintiff Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc. ("Miami Breakers") filed this above-styled action on March 19, 2001 alleging (1) unfair competition under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (2) unfair competition under Florida common law and (3) dilution under section 495.151 of the Florida Statutes in connection with Defendants' purported infringing adoption and use of names and trademarks that are confusingly similar to Plaintiff's names and trademarks....

...rtising of goods and services provided , by [Plaintiffs],” (Id. ¶ 65 (alterations added)). The last two counts of the Exist Complaint were brought under Florida law. As to Count VI, Exist sought damages and injunqtive relief under Florida Statute section 495.151 for trademark infringement on the basis Plaintiffs infringed Exist’s Florida-registered mark....

...Appellee, Blanding Automotive, Inc., brought suit for injunction against appellant, claiming that Blanding Automotive, Inc., was a prior user of this trade name and entitled to protection from injury to its business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality of its trade name under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Appellee, upon discovering the existence of Blanding Automotive Center, Inc., sent a letter to its owners objecting to their use of the name and asking that they choose a different name under which to operate their business. Appellant did not comply with this request. Consequently, appellee sought an injunction under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987). This statute provides: 495.151....

...Accordingly, the trial court entered a permanent injunction perpetually enjoining appellant from conducting any and all business under the name Blanding Automotive Center, Inc., or any variation thereof which uses the phrase "Blanding Automotive" as part of its name. *492 Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), expands the protections of trademark law by preventing the dilution of the distinctiveness and value of a trade name and mark, even where there is an absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to source of goods or services....

...located on 103rd Street. Thus, because appellee's name, "Blanding Automotive," is a distinctive one, appellant's significant use of the name is sufficient to establish loss of commercial value and to warrant the granting of relief to appellee under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Gaeta Cromwell, 523 So.2d at 626-7 (trade name "Congress Park" designating an office building complex located on Congress Avenue in Delray Beach is an arbitrary trade name). However, assuming arguendo that "Blanding Automotive" is weak in terms of distinctiveness, it would still be entitled to protection under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), if the evidence establishes that appellant's use demonstrates a likelihood of injury to business reputation, or dilution of the distinctive quality of the name....

...i. Unfair Competition, False Designation & Dilution Dynascan also presents an allegation of false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), state law causes of action for dilution, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 495.151, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to Fla.Stat....

...459 , 470 [ 1980 WL 30222 ] (S.D.Fla.1980). This Court’s analysis is therefore equally conclusive of these issues. Finally, Dynascan is entitled to relief under the state cause of action for *1182 dilution. See Jaguar Cars Ltd. v. Skandrani, 771 F.Supp. 1178, 1185 (S.D.Fla.1991). Section 495.151 provides that any person using a mark is entitled to an injunction enjoining: Subsequent use by another of the same or similar mark if it appears to the court that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of goods or services. Fla.Stat. § 495.151....

...ORDER MODIFYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS JORDAN, District Judge. As noted in my previous orders granting summary judgment in part in favor of Merisant against Alvaro Buendia [D.E. 300] and the Trio defendants [D.E. 302], the Florida anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151, is "not intended to apply to the use of a similar mark on similar goods." Harley-Davidson Motor Company v....

...a finding of liability against the F. Garcia defendants. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED on those counts in favor of Fausto Campuzano, Maria Campuzano and F. Garcia Wholesale & Export, Inc. Because Florida's anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151, is inapplicable to Merisant's marks being copies by unauthorized individuals on boxes containing genuine Equal product, summary judgment is also granted in favor of the F....

...Defendants have not violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by falsely designating the origin of defendants' services. 12. Defendants have not engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 817.69-817.72, F.S.A. 13. Defendants have not violated Florida Statute § 495.151, F.S.A....

...Rooney to be in "willful violation" and again imposed sanctions. Skeet'r Beat'r ultimately filed an amended complaint against Mr. Rooney asserting three counts. The first count alleged injury to Skeet'r Beat'r's business reputation and dilution of its trademark, and thereby sought recovery under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...IP Holdings has asserted the following claims on this basis: (1) cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d); (2) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ; (3) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (c); (4) trademark dilution under Fla. Stat. § 495.151 ; (5) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C....

...Dieter filed suit against B & H in the Middle District of Florida, alleging trademark infringement. Its complaint included causes of action under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 , 1125(a); under the Florida common law of unfair competition; and under FLA.STAT.ANN. § 495.151 for damage to business reputation....

...ict court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. IV.STATE LAW CLAIMS. Dieter’s complaint also stated claims for unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), unfair competition under Florida common law, and dilution under FLA. STATS. 495.151....

...er the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a) Count II: Florida Trademark Infringement under Florida Statute § 495.131 Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition Count V: Trademark Dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151 See Compl....

...on likely to suggest a false sponsorship, license, or association between the two parties' Champion marks. ( Id. at ¶¶ 42-43). HSI further avers that Defendant's actions amount to an injury to business reputation and dilution under Florida Statute Section 495.151 and common law unfair competition and trademark infringement principles....

...g precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit. [3] See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [4] CWMSC argues, for instance, that HSI's mark is not "famous" and that it has failed to alleged that its marks are famous, and thus cannot sustain an action under Section 495.151, Florida Statutes....

...fteen to twenty miles north of Boca Raton. Appellee asked that appellant change its name and when appellant refused, appellee filed suit. Appellee's complaint alleged common-law trade name infringement, common-law unfair competition and violation of section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...The trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (a) Although we [sic] conclude that plaintiff is entitled to relief under all counts of the complaint, we [sic] believe that plaintiff's easiest task is under Count III which is based upon F.S. 495.151....

...s bank. Therefore, we hold that the trial court correctly found that the name "First Southern Bank" was an arbitrary or fanciful name. We also hold that the trial court's factual findings satisfy the statutory requirements for trade name protection. Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1989) provides: Injury to business reputation; dilution....

...§ 1125; tortious interference with business relationships and prospective advantages business relationships between TracFone and its manufacturers; unfair competition and false advertising under § 501.204, Fla. Stat.; injury to business reputation and dilution of marks under § 495.151....

...In addition, the court found that Tropical Attractions’ continued use of the “Sur Fari” label and Wesco’s advertising materials constituted unfair competition at common law and a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), and Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151....

...damages on its trademark and unfair competition claims. Although the court found that Tropical Attractions’ use of the “Sur Fari” mark and Wesco’s advertising materials was a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 and constituted unfair competition at common law, it concluded that Wesco had not offered sufficient proof of actual damages or Tropical Attractions’ sales....

...that the concept is broad enough to encompass the conduct involved here. See id. at 1119-21 . .Wesco did ask for relief against Rinehuls in the other counts of the complaint for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), and Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 and for unfair competition at common law....

...nation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II); (3) false advertising in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count III); (4) trademark infringement in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151, et seq., (Count IV); (5) misleading advertising in violation of Fla....

...ant’s ownership of the mark, and of registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in this state in connection with the ... services specified in the certificate.” § 495.061(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). Finally, even though the anti-dilution statute, section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), eliminated the need to inquire into the territorial scope of the competing business to determine whether customer confusion is present, Tio Pepe, Inc....

as well as trademark dilution in violation of § 495.151, Fla.Stat. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have

...likelihood that consumers would confuse the two marks. 2 These state-law claims were for deceptive and unfair trade practices under Fla. Stat. ch. 501, false advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41, unfair competition under Florida common law, dilution under Fla. Stat. § 495.151, and dilution under Florida common law. 5  This Court considers the following seven factors in assessing whether or not a likelihood of consumer confusion exists: 1....

...We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). We reverse because the trial court failed to conduct a proper evidentiary hearing on the request for a temporary injunction. Sakura filed a complaint against Lin Yan, Inc., seeking injunctive relief under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (2001), in its first count and seeking damages and injunctive relief for unfair trade practices under section 501.203, Florida Statutes (2001), in its second count. [1] Thereafter, Sakura sought a temporary injunction pursuant to section 495.151 against Lin Yan to enjoin the use of the name "Sakura Chinatowne" by Lin Yan....

...After hearing argument of counsel, the trial court denied the request for a temporary injunction, stating: "There are too many people with that name around the State of Florida. There are people in this area.... That's competition." We conclude that the trial court failed to address the requirements of section 495.151 and that it erred in preventing Sakura from presenting evidence relating to such requirements. Section 495.151 addresses actions for dilution in Florida and provides the following: Every person ......

...In the present case, the trial court failed to address any of these factors in its findings and it did not allow the parties to present evidence relating to the factors. Therefore, we reverse and remand this case with directions that the trial court conduct a full evidentiary hearing considering the requirements of section 495.151....

...Lanham Act § 32; (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 43(a); (3) trademark infringement under Florida Statute § 495.131; (4) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act under Florida Statute § 501.204; (5) trademark dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151; (6) Florida common-law trademark infringement; (7) Florida common-law unfair competition; and (8) Florida common-law unjust enrichment. C....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Marks v. Cayo Hueso, Ltd., 437 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wagner v. Nottingham Associates, 464 So.2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), pet. for review denied, 475 So.2d 696 (Fla.1985); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); § 495.151, Fla....

...Klayman asserts the following six claims in his Complaint: (1) Federal trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)); (2) Federal false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); (3) Florida state trademark infringement (Fla.Stat. § 495.131); (4) Florida state trademark dilution (Fla.Stat. § 495.151); (5) Unfair Competition under Florida Statute; and (6) Florida common law trademark infringement....

...§ 1125(a); (2) unfair competition under the Lanham Act, id.; (3) violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, id. § 1125(d); (4) unfair competition under Florida law; (5) violation of Florida’s trademark dilution statute, Fla. Stat. § 495.151; and (6) violation of Florida’s “Antiphising Act,” Fla. Stat....

...Both parties operate tour trains in Key West. The complaint alleged defendant was guilty of various acts of unfair trade practice by use of equipment, colors, nomenclature, etc., similar to those of the plaintiff, in violation of its trade name and trademark under § 495.151 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and by soliciting business in a manner which mislead and confused plaintiff’s custpmers....

...t the mark will lose its ability to serve as a unique identifier of the plaintiff's product"). Because Plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, Defendants' motion is denied. B. Florida's Antidilution Statute Section 495.151 provides that the Court may enjoin the use of the same or similar mark if the Plaintiff proves: that there exists a likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark ... notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. Fla. Stat § 495.151....

...ar goods. Because dilution claims, under Florida law, apply only to similar marks on similar products, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and Counts IX and XX must be dismissed with prejudice to the extent that they assert causes of action under Section 495.151 of the Florida Statutes....

...Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 5, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20 and 21 (Dkt. No. 81) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count eighteen is dismissed with leave to amend; Counts nine and twenty are dismissed with prejudice to the extent that they state claims under Florida statutes, Section 495.151; and Count twenty-one is dismissed with prejudice....

...nada for over fifty years. Appellee, also a family owned restaurant business, opened a new restaurant in North Miami Beach using a similar name and logo to that used by appellant. Appellant filed an action under common law trademark infringement and section 495.151 Florida Statutes (1987), and sought a temporary injunction to prevent appellee from using the similar name and logo....

...f the similar name and logo and contains sufficient evidence showing appellee took corrective steps once it learned appellant objected to its use of the similar name and logo. The record fails to support a statutory basis for business dilution under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), since prior use by appellant of the name in Florida is not sufficiently proved....

...origin, a form of unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II); dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (Count III); unfair competition under Florida com- mon law (Count IV); and antidilution under Fla. Stat. § 495.151 (Count V)....

to relief under Florida law. Florida Statutes § 495.-151 specifically provides that there may be injury

...Abner’s Internat’l, Inc., Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 865 ; Junior Food Stores of W. Fla. v. Jr. Food Stores, Inc., Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 393 ; Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 711 ; Jet Air Freight v. Jet Air Freight Delivery, Inc., Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 35 ; Florida Statutes § 495.151, F.S.A....

...U.S.C. § 1125(c); (4) copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.; (5) a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (the "DMCA"); (6) injury to business reputation in violation of Section 495.151, Florida Statutes; (7) deceptive and unfair trade practices in violation of Section 501.201, Florida Statutes; and (8) unfair competition, misappropriation, and conversion....

...Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So.2d 1367 (Fla.App. 4Dist.1981). Plaintiff has failed to prove that ISG has engaged in false or misleading advertising. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant has not violated Fla. Stat. § 817.41 . C. Counts VI and VII: Fla. Stat. 495.151 and Dilution of Frehling’s Mark Under Fla. Stat. § 495.151 , the Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s mark caused “a likelihood of injury to the business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality” of the Oggetti mark....

...*1452 accusation. Defendant’s expert witness, Fishkin, testified that the Oggetti name was not distinctive because it has minimal consumer recognition. The Court finds in favor of Defendant and concludes that Defendant has not violated Fla. Stat. § 495.151 or Florida common law for dilution of Plaintiffs mark....

...Voluntary Group Purchasing Groups, 659 F.2d 695 (5th Cir. Unit A, 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1126 , 102 S.Ct. 2947 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1982). 4. On the claim asserted in Count Four of the complaint the plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief under the provisions of § 495.151, Fla.Stat.1983....

...Count IV of the Complaint is hereby DENIED. To recapitulate, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED. However, in light of the Plaintiff's seemingly incorrect reliance on Fla.Stat. § 495.141, rather than Fla.Stat. § 495.151, the Plaintiff shall submit a Motion to Correct the Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of the entry of this Order....

...Finally, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant shall file an answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of the entry of this Order. NOTES [1] Although the Plaintiff's Complaint relies on Fla.Stat. § 495.141 to support the cause of action alleged in Count IV, the Court finds that Fla.Stat. § 495.151 is the statute which provides a cause of action for injury to business reputation and dilution of mark. Fla.Stat. § 495.141, unlike § 495.151, is limited to the protection of registered marks or names. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs, Inc., 675 F.2d 1160, 1168 n. 13 (11th Cir.1982). As the Plaintiff does not allege state registration of the mark, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 would be the applicable statute. Therefore, for the purposes of this Order only, the Court will treat Count IV of the Complaint as alleging a cause of action under Fla.Stat. § 495.151.

...signation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II), (3) false advertising in violation of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count III); (4) trademark infringement in violation of Fla. Stat. § 495.151 et seq....

...ight to use the name “Shutterworld.” Plaintiff has sued under two provisions of the federal Lan-ham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 , 1125(a); under the Florida common law of unfair competition; and for damage to business reputation under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151....

...Trademark infringement and dilution under Florida law The finding that defendant has not infringed plaintiff’s trademark under federal law also disposes of the state law infringement claim. See Sun Banks, 651 F.2d at 319 . Plaintiff’s dilution claim is based upon Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151....

...knowledge of registrant’s prior use; (6) prior use of non registered users marks; (7) used to violate antitrust laws of U.S.; (8) mark is functional; and (9) equitable principles, including laches, estoppel and acquiescence are applicable. . F.S. § 495.151 Every person, association, or union of workers adopting and using a mark, trade name, label or form of advertisement may proceed by suit, and all courts having jurisdiction thereof shall grant injunctions, to enjoin subsequent use by anoth...

...ed, publicized, and held since 1990. “Dilution differs from infringement in that it does not necessarily depend on either competing goods or likelihood of confusion.” Great S. Bank, 625 So.2d at 470 . A violation of Florida’s dilution statute, section 495.151, occurs where a designation resembles the highly distinctive mark of another in a manner likely to cause a reduction in the distinctiveness of the other’s mark or “tarnishes” the images associated with the other’s mark....