preview

Chapel No. 13 Case Study

Decent Essays
An owner of a “famous and distinctive” mark is entitled to an injunction against an infringer if the user of the mark is “likely to cause dilution of the famous mark”. Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 477 F3d 765,766 (2d Cir. 2007).
The question of whether Chapel and Chapel No.13 are famous will probably be undisputed. Nonetheless, if this is contested by the defendant, as per the facts Chapel and Chapel No. 13 will most likely be held to be famous as both marks are federally registered marks, thus will have nationwide protection of its mark, moreover, this also establishes Chapel's priority over its marks. Additionally, Chapel spent $2 million last year to advertise Chapel No. 13 in the US market through fashion magazines and via the Internet earning $4 billion in revenue worldwide. In Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 257 (4th Cir. 2007), Louis Vuitton (LV) (established as a famous mark) spent approximately $2 million for its multicolor designs moreover like Chapel, it sold its products exclusively to high end retailers thus attracting high-end customers. On the other hand, even though in Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC
…show more content…
$ 57.14 million in one year from sales in U.S. The defendant may raise the fact that the plaintiff’s sale figure represents worldwide sales and…show more content…
Furthermore, Chapel and Chapel No. 13 are distinct names, so it is safe to assume that these marks are on the principal register.

Chapel and Chapel No. 13 are both famous and distinct under U.S.C §1125 (c)(2)(A), hence Chapel would be able to argue dilution under the
Get Access