This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, J.) following a second remand from this Court. The District Court concluded that plaintiffs have failed to prove that defendant’s use of its “Mister Charbucks” and “Charbucks Blend” marks is likely to dilute plaintiffs’ famous “Starbucks” marks, and denied injunctive relief. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in any of its factual determinations, including its evaluation of the six non‐exclusive factors bearing on whether a mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring, enumerated in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, as amended by the Trademark Dilution 1 Revision Act of 2006. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vi). Balancing those factors de novo, we agree with the District Court that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of dilution by blurring. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
by Gehrke & Associates, SC
Serving the community of creative thinkers.TM