Heard about this one today, and I do dig dilution.
Seems the Fourth Circuit last month affirmed a jury’s curious finding that Mattel, Inc.’s SEE ‘N SAY and THE FARMER SAYS marks are famous and were likely to be diluted by Super Duper, Inc.’s use of SEE IT! SAY IT!, SAY AND SING, FISH AND SAY, FISH & SAY, SORT AND SAY, SORT & SAY, and SAY AND SORT marks for children’s language therapy materials.
Really? Do SEE ‘N SAY and THE FARMER SAYS really meet the statutory definition of being “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner”? Not in my book.
Not much analysis in the (unpublished) decision, just that the Fourth Circuit wasn’t going to substitute its judgment for that of the jury.
In the court’s words, “The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the simultaneous use of Mattel’s and Super Duper’s marks would … ‘impair[] the distinctiveness of [Mattel’s] famous marks.’”
It concluded: “[T]he jury was well situated to make the factual determination that Mattel’s marks were ‘famous,’ that sufficient similarity existed between Super Duper’s and Mattel’s marks, and that this association was likely to impair the distinctiveness of Mattel’s ‘famous’ marks. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act (‘TDRA’) requires nothing more, and we are prohibited from reweighing the evidence or drawing inferences from the facts.”
I’d be interested in learning exactly what evidence the jury was presented. I just don’t view SEE ‘N SAY and THE FARMER SAYS as being household brand names. Not by a long shot.
The case cite is Super Duper, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., No. 09-1397 (4th Cir. June 10, 2010).