The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 495
REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 495.151

495.151 Dilution.—

(1) The owner of a 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 and to obtain such other relief against another person’s commercial use of a mark or trade name if such use begins after the mark has become famous and is likely to cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark, as provided in this section. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors, including, but not limited to:

(a) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark in this state.

(b) The duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods and services with which the mark is used.

(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 in this state 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 mark by third parties.

(h) Whether the mark is the subject of a state registration in this state or a federal registration under the Federal Trademark Act of March 3, 1881, or the Federal Trademark Act of February 20, 1905, or a principal register registration under the Federal Trademark Act of July 5, 1946.

(2) In an action brought under this section, the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief in this state unless the person against whom the injunctive relief is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner’s reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark. If such willful intent is proven, and the mark is registered in this state, the owner shall also be entitled to all remedies set forth in this chapter, subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity.

(3) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(a) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

(b) Noncommercial use of the mark.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-58; s. 557, ch. 97-103; s. 17, ch. 2006-191.

F.S. 495.151 on Google Scholar

F.S. 495.151 on Casetext

Amendments to 495.151

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 495.151

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 495.151.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CANES BAR GRILL OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. a v. SANDBAR BAY, LLC, a, 343 F. Supp. 3d 1236 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . Infringement Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition Count V: Trademark Dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151 . . .

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, v. FLORIDA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, INC. d. b. a., 830 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . Stat. § 495.151. . . . Stat. §495.151. . . . Id. § 495.151(1). . . . mark is used); id. § 495.151(e) (trade channels); id. § 495.151(f) (degree of recognition); id. § 495.151 . . . Stat. § 495.151(1). . . .

PRONMAN, a v. STYLES, Mr. S., 645 F. App'x 870 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 495.151 et seq.; Count 'VIII, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Fla. . . .

E. S. Y. INC. v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . As to Count VI, Exist sought damages and injunqtive relief under Florida Statute section 495.151 for . . .

PODS ENTERPRISES, LLC, v. U- HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § '495.151 (“The owner of á mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled, subject to the principles . . . Stat. § 495.151(2) ("[T]he owner of a famous mark ... . . .

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, v. FLORIDA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, INC. d b a, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 495.151 [D.E. 1 ¶¶ 48-52], Dilution under Florida law “differs from infringement in that it does . . . Stat. § 495.151(l)(a)-(h). . . . Stat. § 495.151 to track 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. . . .

MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC. v. LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC., 779 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 495.151. . . .

I. P. HOLDINGS, LLC, v. GEORGIA INJURY CENTERS, LLC, D. D. C. C. D. C., 71 F. Supp. 3d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 495.151; (5) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (6) unfair competition under Florida . . .

ACETO CORPORATION, a v. THERAPEUTICSMD, INC. a a, 953 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 495.151 (Count V), common law unjust enrichment (Count VI); misappropriation and conversion (Count . . . Stat. § 495.151, the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act) should be dismissed for lack . . .

FRU VEG MARKETING, INC. a v. VEGFRUITWORLD CORP. f k a USA a, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 495.151; (5) violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. . . .

PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES INC. A d. b. a. v. EASTERN SHORE TOYOTA, LLC, LLC,, 684 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 495.151; and (6) violation of Florida’s “Antiphishing Act,” Fla. Stat. § 668.704. . . .

BRAIN PHARMA, LLC, a v. SCALINI,, 858 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . Plaintiff also brings claims for injury to business reputation and dilution pursuant to Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . .

KNIGHTS ARMAMENT COMPANY, a v. OPTICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC. a, 654 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 495.151, et seq. (Count TV); (5) misleading advertising in violation of Fla. . . .

ANDERSON, v. UPPER KEYS BUSINESS GROUP, INC., 61 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . A violation of Florida’s dilution statute, section 495.151, occurs where a designation resembles the . . .

C. SANDERSON, St. s P. A. v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,, 792 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . . § 1202(b) (the “DMCA”); (6) injury to business reputation in violation of Section 495.151, Florida . . .

RICKS, v. BMEZINE. COM, LLC, LLC, v., 727 F. Supp. 2d 936 (D. Nev. 2010)

. . . advantage, trademark infringement under Florida Statutes § 495.131, dilution under Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . .

TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, v. MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, LLC a k a H. W., 672 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Common Law Unfair Competition by all Defendants; Count X, Florida Dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151 . . .

RAIN BIRD CORPORATION, a v. TAYLOR, AAA, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 495.151, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. . . . competition under the Florida Registration and Protection of Trademarks Act (FRPTA), Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . . (Counts VI and VII) The FRPTA and FDUTPA also permit an antidilution claim under Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . .

KNIGHTS ARMAMENT COMPANY, v. OPTICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. C. Jr., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 495.151 et seq. (Count IV); (5) misleading advertising in violation of Fla. . . .

SOUTHERN GROUTS MORTARS, INC. a v. COMPANY, a, 575 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . relationships and prospective business relationships, and (4) dilution in violation of Florida Statute § 495.151 . . .

KNIGHTS ARMAMENT COMPANY, v. OPTICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. C. Jr., 636 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 495.151, et seq. ("Count IV”); (5) misleading advertising in violation of Fla. . . .

KLAYMAN, v. FREEDOM S WATCH, INC. P. Ed, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 495.151); (5) Unfair Competition under Florida Statute; and (6) Florida common law trademark infringement . . .

HSI IP, INC. a v. CHAMPION WINDOW MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., 510 F. Supp. 2d 948 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . Defendant’s actions amount to an injury to business reputation and dilution under Florida Statute Section 495.151 . . . it has failed to alleged that its marks are famous, and thus cannot sustain an action under Section 495.151 . . .

TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. a v. DIXON, a k a a k a a k a d b a A- d b a A- S, LLC. a, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . .; injury to business reputation and dilution of marks under § 495.151. Fla. . . .

UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. MICHAEL J. ZWEBNER, v. LYCOS, INC. d b a S. A. Jr. a k a a k a Jr. a k a a k a a k a a k a a k a a k a H., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 495.151; and (4) cyberstalking under Fla. Stat. § 784.048. . . . Stat. § 495.151. . . . Stat. § 495.151 (2006) provided that one who adopts and uses a trademark or trade name has a cause of . . . Stat. § 495.151 (2007). . . .

J. ROONEY, v. SKEET R BEAT R OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., 898 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Beat’r’s business reputation and dilution of its trademark, and thereby sought recovery under section 495.151 . . .

STEAK N SHAKE COMPANY, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION,, 323 F. Supp. 2d 983 (E.D. Mo. 2004)

. . . . § 495.151. . . .

FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS B. V. C. A. v. CONSORCIO BARR, S. A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 495.151. See Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. . . . Stat. § 495.151. 76. . . .

SAKURA JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE INC. a v. LIN YAN, INC. a, 827 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Sakura filed a complaint against Lin Yan, Inc., seeking injunctive relief under section 495.151, Florida . . . Thereafter, Sakura sought a temporary injunction pursuant to section 495.151 against Lin Yan to enjoin . . . We conclude that the trial court faded to address the requirements of section 495.151 and that it erred . . . Section 495.151 addresses actions for dilution in Florida and provides the following: Every person .. . . . directions that the trial court conduct a full evidentiary hearing considering the requirements of section 495.151 . . .

PORTIONPAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION, v. SANITECH SYSTEMS, INC. A., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . Florida’s Antidilution Statute Section 495.151 provides that the Court may enjoin the use of the same . . . Stat § 495.151. . . . and XX must be dismissed with prejudice to the extent that they assert causes of action under Section 495.151 . . . twenty are dismissed with prejudice to the extent that they state claims under Florida statutes, Section 495.151 . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. J. CAMPUZANO, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 495.151, is “not intended to apply to the use of a similar mark on similar goods.” . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. J. CAMPUZANO,, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 495.151, is inapplicable to Merisant’s marks being copies by unauthorized individuals on boxes containing . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. J. CAMPUZANO, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 495.151, Florida’s anti-dilution statute. . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.151 Under Florida’s statute, neither confusion nor competition are necessary. . . .

MONSANTO COMPANY v. CAMPUZANO, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . §'495.151. Florida’s anti-dilution statute. . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.151 ■ Under Florida’s statute, neither confusion nor competition are necessary. . . .

VICTORIA S CYBER SECRET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. s LLC, s d b a s, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 495.151; the alleged violation of Florida's consumer protection law is based upon Fla. . . .

PLANETARY MOTION, INC. v. TECHPLOSION, INC. a. k. a., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001)

. . . . § 495.151 (West 2000). . . . 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as injury to business reputation and dilution under Florida Statute § 495.151 . . . Stat. § 495.151 provides for injunctive relief only. . . .

TORTOISE ISLAND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TORTOISE ISLAND REALTY, INC., 790 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Bank for common law trade name infringement, common law unfair competition, and violation of section 495.151 . . . In addition, the Association is entitled to relief under section 495.151, Florida Statutes, even if it . . . The statute provides: 495.151. . . .

MIAMI BREAKERS SOCCER CLUB, INC. a v. WOMEN S UNITED SOCCER ASSOCIATION, a s L. L. C. d b a a PH d b a a, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2001)

. . . . § 1125(a), (2) unfair competition under Florida common law and (3) dilution under section 495.151 of . . .

ELI LILLY COMPANY, v. NATURAL ANSWERS, INCORPORATED, a A., 233 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2000)

. . . Stat. ch. 495.151 (injunction available if “there exists a likelihood ... of dilution of the distinctive . . .

PALMER v. GOTTA HAVE IT GOLF COLLECTIBLES, INC. v. d b a, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . Florida common law unfair competition [Count V]; Florida trademark dilution in violation of Section 495.151 . . .

GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH- DAY ADVENTISTS v. PEREZ, d b a SDA a a, 97 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (S.D. Fla. 2000)

. . . . § 495.151 Every person, association, or union of workers adopting and using a mark, trade name, label . . .

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, v. SEAESCAPE CASINO CRUISES, INC., 74 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 1999)

. . . competition and trademark infringement, as well as for trademark dilution under Florida Statute section 495.151 . . . Stat. § 495.151. . . . Under section 495.151, a violation can also be based on a likelihood of injury to business reputation . . .

FREHLING ENTERPRISES, INC. d. b. a. v. INTERNATIONAL SELECT GROUP, INC. d. b. a., 192 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 495.151, and dilution under Florida common law. . . . .

MICHAEL CARUSO CO, INC. v. ESTEFAN ENTERPRISES, INC., 994 F. Supp. 1454 (S.D. Fla. 1998)

. . . . § 495.151 (“Florida Dilution Act”); and (4) common law unfair competition. . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.151. . . .

FREHLING ENTERPRISES, INC. d b a v. INTERNATIONAL SELECT GROUP, INC. d b a, 994 F. Supp. 1443 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Stat. 495.151 and Dilution of Frehling’s Mark Under Fla. . . . . § 495.151, the Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s mark caused “a likelihood of injury to the business . . . Stat. § 495.151 or Florida common law for dilution of Plaintiffs mark. D. . . .

BIG TOMATO, a v. TASTY CONCEPTS, INC. a d b a, 972 F. Supp. 662 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 495.151; and (3) Unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and false and misleading statements . . .

HARLEY- DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY H- D v. IRON EAGLE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., 973 F. Supp. 1421 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 495.151, allows the Court to enjoin subsequent use of the same or similar mark if the Plaintiff proves . . . Stat. § 495.151. The Court has found that the marks are distinctive and entitled to 'protection. . . .

RINGLING BROS. BARNUM BAILEY, COMBINED SHOWS, INC. v. UTAH DIVISION OF TRAVEL DEVELOPMENT,, 935 F. Supp. 763 (E.D. Va. 1996)

. . . . § 495.151; Ga.St. 10-1-451(b); 10. Stat. ch. 765 § 1035/15; see also Polaroid Corp. v. . . .

ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC. v. A- B DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 910 F. Supp. 587 (M.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . . § 495.151, and Florida’s deceptive and unfair trade practices act, Fla.Stat. § 501.201; and for breach . . .

LABORATORIOS ROLDAN, C. POR A. a v. TEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. a a a a s a A. B. C. E. a a a a a a d b a A. B. C. E., 902 F. Supp. 1555 (S.D. Fla. 1995)

. . . Fla.Stat. ch. 495.151. . . . Florida Statute § 495.151 provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and using . . . Fla.Stat. ch. 495.151 (1995). . . . .

LIMELIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. LIMELITE STUDIOS, INC., 60 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 495.151, and common law trademark infringement. . . .

BABBIT ELECTRONICS, INC. v. DYNASCAN CORPORATION,, 38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994)

. . . . § 495.151, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 501.204(1), and a common . . . Section 495.151 provides that any person using a mark is entitled to an injunction enjoining: Subsequent . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.151. . . .

COMEDY HALL OF FAME, INC. v. GEORGE SCHLATTER PRODUCTIONS, INC., 874 F. Supp. 378 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . unfair competition under common law and federal law, as well as trademark dilution in violation of § 495.151 . . .

GLEN RAVEN MILLS, INC. v. RAMADA INTERNATIONAL, INC., 852 F. Supp. 1544 (M.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes, provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting . . . Section 495.151 requires a showing of either a likelihood of injury to business reputation or a likelihood . . . The Court is not aware of any guidance in this area in cases interpreting Section 495.151. . . . determine whether the “class of purchasers” requirement should be applied to a dilution claim under Section 495.151 . . .

R. L. WINSTON ROD COMPANY, a v. SAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a a, 838 F. Supp. 1396 (D. Mont. 1993)

. . . . § 495.151 (1988); N.Y.Gen. Bus.Law § 368-d. . . .

GREAT SOUTHERN BANK, v. FIRST SOUTHERN BANK,, 625 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1993)

. . . Bank for common-law trade name infringement, common-law unfair competition, and violation of section 495.151 . . . As a result, a number of states have adopted dilution statutes, and Florida’s section 495.151 is one. . . . to business reputation or 2) dilution of the distinctive quality of the trade name. § 495.151. . . . The trial judge found that a violation of section 495.151 occurred. . . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen . . .

BABBIT ELECTRONICS, INC. v. DYNASCAN CORPORATION,, 828 F. Supp. 944 (S.D. Fla. 1993)

ICE COLD AUTO AIR OF CLEARWATER, INC. a d b a a d b a a d b a a d b a CASC, a d b a d b a a d b a a d b a v. COLD AIR ACCESSORIES, INC. a d b a A. a d b a C L a d b a d b a, 828 F. Supp. 925 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

. . . competition Count IV: common law palming off Count V: state trademark dilution under Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . . In addressing state trademark dilution under Florida Statutes § 495.151, the Eleventh Circuit has noted . . .

GREAT SOUTHERN BANK, v. FIRST SOUTHERN BANK, a, 601 So. 2d 584 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . alleged common-law trade name infringement, common-law unfair competition and violation of section 495.151 . . . complaint, we [sic] believe that plaintiff’s easiest task is under Count III which is based upon F.S. 495.151 . . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1989) provides: Injury to business reputation; dilution.— Every person . . .

BAUER LAMP CO. INC. v. SHAFFER, a, 941 F.2d 1165 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . Stat.Ann. section 495.151 and sections 501.201-501.213 (West 1982). . . . Id. .Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 (West 1982) provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen . . .

INVESTACORP, INC. v. ARABIAN INVESTMENT BANKING CORPORATION INVESTCORP E. C. d b a a, 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . . § 495.151 (West 1988). . Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1988). . . . .

PRECISION COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. v. HAMC INDUSTRIES, INC., 46 Fla. Supp. 2d 124 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1991)

. . . HAMC Industries from using the name “Precision Services” in its business pursuant to Florida Statutes §495.151 . . . Florida Statutes § 495.151 states that: [A]ll courts having jurisdiction . . . shall grant injunctions . . . If the Plaintiff makes the required showing under Florida Statutes §495.151, Florida’s anti-dilution . . . In cases involving Florida Statutes §495.151, the rule has been relaxed even more. . . . See also Blanding, 568 So.2d 490 (permanent injunction granted under section 495.151 upon showing of . . .

JAGUAR CARS LIMITED v. SKANDRANI,, 771 F. Supp. 1178 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

. . . Section 495.151 provides that any person using a mark is entitled to an injunction enjoining: [Subsequent . . . Accordingly, injunctive relief under Florida Statutes § 495.151 is appropriate here to prevent further . . . Plaintiffs’ federal and common law rights in the Jaguar marks in violation of the Lanham Act and Fla.Stat. § 495.151 . . .

BLANDING AUTOMOTIVE CENTER, INC. v. BLANDING AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 568 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . injury to its business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality of its trade name under section 495.151 . . . Consequently, appellee sought an injunction under section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987). . . . This statute provides: 495.151. . . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), expands the protections of trademark law by preventing the . . . establish loss of commercial value and to warrant the granting of relief to appellee under section 495.151 . . .

OCEAN BIO- CHEM, INC. v. TURNER NETWORK TELEVISION, INC., 741 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 495.151 (1989); and (3) dilution of trademark and trade name in violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151 . . . In addition to its Lanham Act claim, Ocean brings two claims under section 495.151 of the Florida Statutes . . . See Tally-Ho, Inc., 889 F.2d at 1025 (§ 495.151 eliminates need to show competition between parties or . . .

NEVA, INC. a v. CHRISTIAN DUPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. a a R. B. T- V a a, 743 F. Supp. 1533 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 1116(a) of the Lanham Act, Florida Statute § 540.08, and Florida Statute § 495.151, on the ground . . . Count II was an action brought under Florida Statute § 495.151 (1989) for injury to Plaintiffs’ business . . .

AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. AMERICAN UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 731 F. Supp. 480 (S.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . the common law; and that defendant has violated the Florida anti-dilution statute, Florida Statute § 495.151 . . . 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 . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.151. . . . and service mark infringement under common law; and for defendant’s violation of Florida Statute § 495.151 . . .

TALLY- HO, INC. A v. COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,, 889 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . The Florida statute also permits an “antidilution” claim under section 495.151. . . . In full, this passage states: F.S., Section 495.151, F.S.A., does, however, obviate the necessity in . . . The court in Abner’s Beef House was discussing Florida’s antidilution statute, section 495.151, which . . . Count IV alleges violation of Florida's antidilution statute, FLA.STAT. § 495.151 (1988). . . . . FLA.STAT.ANN. § 495.151 (West 1988). . . . .

CHASE MEDICAL GROUP, d b a v. PALMETTO CLINIC CENTER, O., 549 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Finally, even though the anti-dilution statute, section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1987), eliminated . . .

INVESTACORP, INC. v. ARABIAN INVESTMENT BANKING CORPORATION INVESTCORP E. C., 722 F. Supp. 719 (S.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 495.151 (Count VI). . . . of trademark infringement and unfair competition, and Florida’s anti-dilution statute, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 . . .

A. DIETER, d b a A. v. B H INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., 880 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 495.151 for damage to business reputation. . . . STATS. 495.151. . . .

MOISHE S INC. a v. MOISHE S STEAK HOUSE AND SEAFOOD, INC. a, 528 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Appellant filed an action under common law trademark infringement and section 495.151 Florida Statutes . . . The record fails to support a statutory basis for business dilution under section 495.151, Florida Statutes . . .

A. DIETER, d b a A. v. B H INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., 683 F. Supp. 1345 (M.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . . § 495.151. . . . Plaintiff’s dilution claim is based upon Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151. . . .

GAETA CROMWELL, INC. v. BANYAN LAKES VILLAGE, a B S a d b a, 523 So. 2d 624 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Appel-lees filed a two-count complaint alleging in count I a cause of action under section 495.151, Florida . . . Relief was predicated solely upon section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides: Injury to . . . and therefore the trial court did not err in granting the temporary injunction pursuant to section 495.151 . . . Since this language simply quotes from section 495.151, we conclude that the order is not in error, although . . .

COTTON GINNY, LIMITED, a v. COTTON GIN, INC., 691 F. Supp. 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

. . . . §§ 1114(l)(a), 1125(a) (1982), as well as § 495.151 of the Florida Statutes and common law rights. . . . rights under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), as well as state, Fla.Sta.Ann. § 495.151 . . .

TIO PEPE, INC. v. EL TIO PEPE MIAMI RESTAURANT, INC., 523 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Florida’s anti-dilution statute, section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1985), protects a prior user of a . . . the service mark “Cookie Jar,” enjoining subsequent use of the mark by a topless go-go bar), section 495.151 . . .

WESCO MANUFACTURING, INC. a v. TROPICAL ATTRACTIONS OF PALM BEACH, INC. a a k a, 833 F.2d 1484 (11th Cir. 1987)

. . . . § 495.151. . . . Wesco’s advertising materials was a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 . . . counts of the complaint for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and Fla.Stat.Ann. § 495.151 . . .

AMBRIT, INC. f k a v. KRAFT, INC., 805 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 495.151 et seq. . Fla.Stat. § 501.201 et seq. . . . .

AMBRIT, INC. f k a v. KRAFT, INC., 812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 495.151 et seq. . Fla.Stat. § 501.201 et seq. . . . .

TAMI TRAVEL, INC. a v. AVENTURA COUNTRY CLUB, a a, 497 So. 2d 919 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); § 495.151, Fla. Stat. (1983). . . .

ROLEX WATCH U. S. A. INC. v. CANNER, 645 F. Supp. 484 (S.D. Fla. 1986)

. . . . § 495.151. . . .

AIRSHIP INDUSTRIES UK LTD. USA v. GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER COMPANY,, 643 F. Supp. 754 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . . § 495.151 (West 1972), which provides: Every person, association, or union of workingmen adopting and . . .

BELL LABORATORIES, INC. v. COLONIAL PRODUCTS, INC., 644 F. Supp. 542 (S.D. Fla. 1986)

. . . . § 1125(a), violation of the Florida anti-dilution statute, § 495.151, Fla.Stats., and for common law . . . Additionally, Plaintiff relies upon the Florida anti-dilution statute, § 495.151, Fla. . . . Neither has it met the above requirement on its anti-dilution claim under § 495.151. . . .

SWATCH WATCH, S. A. S. A. d U. S. A. v. TAXOR INC., 785 F.2d 956 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 1125 and Florida common law, and dilution under Florida Statute 495.151. . . .

LA TERRAZA DE MARTI, INC. a v. KEY WEST FRAGRANCE COSMETIC FACTORY, INC. a, 617 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . . § 495.151, the Plaintiff shall submit a Motion to Correct the Complaint within ten (10) days of the . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.141 to support the cause of action alleged in Count IV, the Court finds that Fla.Stat. § 495.151 . . . Fla.Stat. § 495.141, unlike § 495.151, is limited to the protection of registered marks or names. . . . As the Plaintiff does not allege state registration of the mark, Fla.Stat. § 495.151 would be the applica . . . only, the Court will treat Count IV of the Complaint as alleging a cause of action under Fla.Stat. § 495.151 . . .

ISALY COMPANY, v. KRAFT, INC., 619 F. Supp. 983 (M.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . competition; Count 4 — dilution of Isaly’s trade' dress rights in violation of Florida Statute Section 495.151 . . .

SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY, 657 F. Supp. 1307 (M.D. La. 1985)

. . . . § 495.151 and Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 140, ¶ 22, § 15 (Smith-Hurd Supp.1984). . . . .

FREEDOM SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. WAY, Jr. d b a, 757 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 495.151 (1972) by using the Freedom Realty name. . . . Dilution A Florida statute, Section 495.151, expands the protections of trademark law by preventing persons . . .

E. REMY MARTIN CO. S. A. v. SHAW- ROSS INTERNATIONAL IMPORTS, INC. d b a F., 756 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1985)

. . . . § 495.151 (West 1984). . See Community Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. . . .

CHASSIS MASTER CORP. v. BORREGO, 610 F. Supp. 473 (S.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . Fla.Code Ann., § 495.151. . . . plaintiffs’ “Chassis Master” mark, defendants are also guilty of trademark dilution in violation of Section 495.151 . . .

CONAGRA, INC. a v. C. SINGLETON, d b a SINGLETON SHRIMP BOATS, a, 743 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 495.151, which prohibits unfair competition and dilution of an established trade name. . . .

AMERICAN BANK OF MERRITT ISLAND, v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST,, 455 So. 2d 443 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . business reputation and dilution of service mark, trade-name and form of advertisement under section 495.151 . . . tradename and form of advertisement and that the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief under section 495.151 . . .

IC INDUSTRIES, v. I. C. INDUSTRIES,, 595 F. Supp. 340 (M.D. Fla. 1983)

. . . Four of the complaint the plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief under the provisions of § 495.151 . . .

MARKS, v. CAYO HUESO, LTD., 437 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . presented sufficient competent substantial evidence to warrant injunctive relief pursuant to Section 495.151 . . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes (1977) protects a prior user of a trade name from injury to business . . . To establish a prior use under Section 495.151 it is not necessary that a party register its trade name . . . We hold that CHL has established a valid prior use of a trade name protectable under Section 495.151. . . . However, Section 495.151, enacted after Shupe, see Junior Food Stores of West Florida, Inc. v. Jr. . . .

UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. v. SUNRISE MOLD CO. INC., 569 F. Supp. 1475 (S.D. Fla. 1983)

. . . . § 495.151 and the common law of the State of Florida. 3. . . . An injunction may issue for violation of Fla.Stat. § 495.151, Injury to Business Reputation and Dilution . . . of Trademark, § 495.151. 25. . . .

COMMUNITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. ORONDORFF, d b a, 678 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir. 1982)

. . . , on Count II of appellant’s amended complaint, seeking in-junctive relief under Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . . dispositive issue is whether the district court erred in denying appellant relief under Florida Statutes § 495.151 . . . Section 495.151 provides, in pertinent part: Every person .. . adopting and using a mark . . . may proceed . . .

SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, v. SAFEWAY DISCOUNT DRUGS, INC., 675 F.2d 1160 (11th Cir. 1982)

. . . Section 495.151, Florida Statutes Annotated, states that any person using a mark or trade name may sue . . . Commenting on Section 495.151, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that the statute, as its language . . . Although it need not show competition or confusion to prove a violation of Section 495.151, it still . . . Section 495.151 appears to have eliminated the need for inquiry into territorial scope, requiring only . . .

BROOKS SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. a v. SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, a, 533 F. Supp. 75 (S.D. Fla. 1981)

. . . . § 495.151. Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Out In America, 481 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1973). . . .

SUN BANKS OF FLORIDA, INC. a v. SUN FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a, 651 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1981)

. . . . § 495.151 (1977). . . .

WOMETCO ENTERPRISES, INC. a v. BUGGY BUS, INC. a, 296 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

. . . nomenclature, etc., similar to those of the plaintiff, in violation of its trade name and trademark under § 495.151 . . .