Injunctive relief, when--order for payment to owner ofmark--destruction of counterfeit marks.
417.061. 1. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or ofdilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid atcommon law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding theabsence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion asto the source of goods or services.
2. Any owner of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacturer, use, display or sale of anycounterfeits or imitations thereof and any court of competent jurisdictionmay grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display or sale asmay be by the said court deemed just and reasonable, and may require thedefendants to pay to such owner all profits derived from or damagessuffered by reason of such wrongful manufacture, use, display or sale; andsuch court may also order that any such counterfeits or imitations in thepossession or under the control of any defendant in such case be deliveredto an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Thecourt, in its discretion, may enter judgment in such cases where the courtfinds that a party committed such wrongful acts with knowledge or in badfaith or otherwise as according to the circumstances of the case.
3. The enumeration of any right or remedy herein shall not affect aregistrant's right to prosecute under any penal law of this state.
(1998) Federal trademark registration is a defense to state anti-dilution statute, but does not preempt the field. Viacom Inc. v. Ingram Enterprises, Inc., 141 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.).
Injunctive relief, when--order for payment to owner ofmark--destruction of counterfeit marks.
417.061. 1. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or ofdilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid atcommon law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding theabsence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion asto the source of goods or services.
2. Any owner of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacturer, use, display or sale of anycounterfeits or imitations thereof and any court of competent jurisdictionmay grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display or sale asmay be by the said court deemed just and reasonable, and may require thedefendants to pay to such owner all profits derived from or damagessuffered by reason of such wrongful manufacture, use, display or sale; andsuch court may also order that any such counterfeits or imitations in thepossession or under the control of any defendant in such case be deliveredto an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Thecourt, in its discretion, may enter judgment in such cases where the courtfinds that a party committed such wrongful acts with knowledge or in badfaith or otherwise as according to the circumstances of the case.
3. The enumeration of any right or remedy herein shall not affect aregistrant's right to prosecute under any penal law of this state.
(1998) Federal trademark registration is a defense to state anti-dilution statute, but does not preempt the field. Viacom Inc. v. Ingram Enterprises, Inc., 141 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.).
Injunctive relief, when--order for payment to owner ofmark--destruction of counterfeit marks.
417.061. 1. Likelihood of injury to business reputation or ofdilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid atcommon law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding theabsence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion asto the source of goods or services.
2. Any owner of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066may proceed by suit to enjoin the manufacturer, use, display or sale of anycounterfeits or imitations thereof and any court of competent jurisdictionmay grant injunctions to restrain such manufacture, use, display or sale asmay be by the said court deemed just and reasonable, and may require thedefendants to pay to such owner all profits derived from or damagessuffered by reason of such wrongful manufacture, use, display or sale; andsuch court may also order that any such counterfeits or imitations in thepossession or under the control of any defendant in such case be deliveredto an officer of the court, or to the complainant, to be destroyed. Thecourt, in its discretion, may enter judgment in such cases where the courtfinds that a party committed such wrongful acts with knowledge or in badfaith or otherwise as according to the circumstances of the case.
3. The enumeration of any right or remedy herein shall not affect aregistrant's right to prosecute under any penal law of this state.
(1998) Federal trademark registration is a defense to state anti-dilution statute, but does not preempt the field. Viacom Inc. v. Ingram Enterprises, Inc., 141 F.3d 886 (8th Cir.).
