Moseley (D), own and operate a retail store named 'Victor's Little Secret' in a strip mall in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. They have no employees. Secret (P) owns the VICTORIA'S SECRET trademark, and operate over 750 Victoria's Secret stores, two of which are in Louisville, Kentucky, a short drive from Elizabethtown. In 1998 they spent over $55 million advertising 'the VICTORIA'S SECRET brand--one of moderately priced, high quality, attractively designed lingerie sold in a store setting designed to look like a woman's bedroom.' They distribute 400 million copies of the Victoria's Secret catalog each year, including 39,000 in Elizabethtown. In 1998 their sales exceeded $1.5 billion. P discovered D and its use of the name Victor’s Secret and asked them to stop the use of the name. D then changed the name to 'Victor's Little Secret.' D refused to budge, and P sued for dilution. Finding that the record contained no evidence of actual confusion between the parties' marks, the District Court concluded that 'no likelihood of confusion exists as a matter of law' and entered summary judgment for Ds on the infringement and unfair competition claims. The court gave the FTDA claim to P, and the appeals court affirmed. D appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.