Yes. The trial court used an old, outdated rule. A new law passed by Congress in 2006, called the TDRA, changed how these cases are decided. This law says that to prove a famous brand is being weakened, you don't have to show the other company's design is 'nearly identical.' Instead, the judge has to look at a checklist of things, and 'how similar are they?' is just one item on that list. Because the trial court used the wrong, much stricter rule, its whole decision was based on a mistake and has to be thrown out so the case can be looked at again using the correct, more flexible rule.

Yes, it was wrong. The law doesn't say the designs have to be almost the same. It says to look at how similar they are along with other things. The lower court made a mistake by using the wrong rule.

No. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) does not require a junior mark to be 'identical or nearly identical' to a famous mark for a dilution claim to succeed. The plain language of the TDRA establishes a multifactor balancing test where the 'degree of similarity' is merely the first of several factors to be considered. The court reasoned that Congress's enactment of the TDRA in 2006, which replaced the prior Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), created a new and more comprehensive statutory scheme. The TDRA defines 'dilution by blurring' as an 'association arising from the similarity between a mark' and lists the 'degree of similarity' as one of six non-exhaustive factors. This statutory structure is incompatible with a rigid threshold requirement of near-identity, which was a judicial gloss on the old FTDA. The court concluded that the district court's application of the outdated 'identical or nearly identical' standard was a legal error that permeated its analysis and was not harmless, thus requiring reversal and remand.

Yes, the district court did err. The TDRA does not stipulate that marks must be 'identical or nearly identical' for a dilution claim. Instead, it lists 'degree of similarity' among several factors to assess dilution. The district court's reliance on an outdated standard was a significant error, affecting the outcome of the case.

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot