It’s no secret: ‘Tarnished’ Victoria wins trademark suit
May 23, 2008
The name was changed eight years ago, and even a Supreme Court victory in 2003 didn’t bring it back. Now, a federal judge has ordered “Victor’s Little Secret” to remain under wraps forever.
To recap: Victor’s Little Secret was an adult novelty and lingerie store operated by Cathy and Victor Moseley in Elizabethtown, Ky., not far from Louisville. Mega-retailer Victoria’s Secret learned of the store and, in true Victorian fashion, was not amused. It went to court and obtained an order blocking the Moseleys from operating under Victor’s name.
The Moseleys changed the name to Cathy’s Little Secret. But they also fought all the way to Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor and remanded the case to the 6th Circuit, with instructions to send it back to the federal court in Louisville for a new ruling.
A funny thing happened on the way to the remand, though. For reasons that aren’t specified, the 6th Circuit sat on the case for awhile. For FOUR YEARS, in fact — until July 2007.
Meanwhile, due in large part to the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, Congress rewrote the law in a way more to Victoria Secret’s liking. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act took effect in 2006.
Thus, by the time the 6th Circuit sent the case back to the trial court, the rules had changed. While the Moseleys cried foul, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson [PDF] applied the new standard and ruled in favor of Victoria’s Secret.
“The use of the remarkably similar ‘Victor’s Secret’ or ‘Victor’s Little Secret’ in connection with the sale of intimate lingerie along with sex toys and adult videos tarnishes the reputation of the Victoria’s Secret mark,” Simpson wrote.
No word yet on whether the Moseleys will continue their fight.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Fire the fiancé?
April 21, 2008
An employer can’t fire a worker for filing a discrimination charge, but is her fiancé fair game?
Our biweekly sister paper, Lawyers USA, has an article on the 6th Circuit’s decision on that point in Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 07-5040.
By a 2-1 vote, the 6th Circuit reinstated a Title VII retaliation suit brought by a man who was fired after his fiancée filed a gender discrimination charge with the EEOC. The appellate decision (PDF) apparently creates a split among the federal circuits — the dissenting judge called the holding a first and cited the 3rd, 5th and 8th Circuits as having held to the contrary, the article notes.
A federal judge in Kentucky had granted summary judgment for the employer, which claims the man was fired over performance issues.
Reversing, the 6th Circuit acknowledged that a “literal reading” of the anti-retaliation law suggests that it applies only to employees who engage in protected activity. However, the appellate court said, “such a reading … ‘defeats the plain purpose’ of Title VII. There is no doubt that an employer’s retaliation against a family member after an employee files an EEOC charge would, under [Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White], dissuade ‘reasonable workers’ from such an action.”
What do you think? And what chances would you give an “associational retaliation” claim here in the 4th Circuit?
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related Content-
Business
Business postsLaw
Law postsRecent Posts
- In the market for a (used) car?
- DNA: What are the odds?
- Three Restaurant Weeks ahead
- Can the city support an NBA or NHL team?
- What’s in a name?
- A foot-stompin’ good time
Recent Comments
- Anonymous: Yes - Harry Johnson!
- Jeff: Of course it can’t. NBA ticket prices are outrageous, and the NHL isn’t any better. (Plus, it...
- Publicus: No.
- Aequitas: There are certainly many types of cases where some (but not necessarily all) people would...
- Anonymous: I think the recent rise in wine festivals is due to ever-increasing alcohol abuse. For some reason,...