New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. New York, New York Hotel, LLC and New York, New York Hotel & Casino, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “New York law accords protection against dilution to marks that are distinctive as a result of acquired secondary meaning as well as to those that are inherently distinctive”
• reversing summary judgment for the defendant based on dilution by tarnishment, but not by blurring
• providing that the six-factor New York dilution test considers “(i) the similarity of the marks; (ii) the similarity of the products covered; (iii) the sophistication of the consumers; (iv) the existence of predatory intent; (v) the renown of the senior mark; and (vi
• because trier of fact could find combination of architectural facade and name inherently distinctive rather than descriptive, summary judgment not appropriate in trademark dilution claim
• “New York” — when used with the generic term “stock exchange” — is descriptive
• “The essence of tarnishment therefore is . . . the displacement of positive with negative associations of the mark that . . . reduces the value of the mark to the trademark owner.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).