Victor Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue
November 12, 2002 (01-1015)
return to
case listing

Case Summary
Respondent, the owner of the "Victoria's Secret" mark, brought a trademark dilution action under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) ("the Act"), against Petitioner Victor Moseley. Respondent claimed that the "Victoria's Secret" trademark was diluted and tarnished by Moseley's adult specialty store named "Victor's Secret" and later "Victor's Little Secret." The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Victoria's Secret on its trademark dilution claim. The court found that Moseley's mark, "Victor's Secret," was sufficiently similar -- the component words were virtually identical -- to cause dilution by blurring. Because Moseley's store had a more risque inventory than Victoria's Secret, Moseley's use of the "Victor's Secret" mark tarnished the Victoria's Secret mark. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Act did not require Victoria's Secret to demonstrate any monetary loss attributed to Moseley's use of a similar mark. Finding that a consumer would likely link a store called "Victor's Little Secret" that sold, among other things, women's lingerie, with the more famous Victoria's Secret, and that blurring and tarnishing would result, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Victoria's Secret. The opinion of the Sixth Circuit is found at 259 F.3d 464 (2001).

To see the opinion of the lower court, click here.


PREDICTED OUTCOME ACTUAL
OUTCOME
Forecasting
Model
Expert
One
Expert
Two
Expert
Three
9-0 to Reverse 9-0 to Affirm 7-2 to Affirm 9-0 to Affirm 9-0 to Reverse
VOTING TO REVERSE
Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Stevens
Breyer
Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
VOTING TO AFFIRM
Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Rehnquist
Stevens
O'Connor
Scalia
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
 

return to case listing