{"argument_date":"2002-11-12T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2002-11-12T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Higgins argued for objective proof over supposition.","Mr. Dellinger argued the statute text answers the injury question negatively.","Mr. Wallace discussed consumer surveys as potential evidence."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 35-39"}]}],"caption":"Moseley v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc.","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.935311Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Victor Moseley seeks to limit trademark dilution claims to proven economic harm. V. Secret argues the statute allows relief without such proof.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2002-11-12T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/01-1015.html","primary_docket":"01-1015","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T16:43:27.478168Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The case tests the scope of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. It asks whether a plaintiff must show actual economic loss to win. The lower court ruled for V. Secret. Moseley asks the Supreme Court to reverse that result."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 12, 2002."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Moseley wants the Court to require proof of actual economic injury for dilution claims.","V. Secret wants the Court to allow dilution claims without proof of economic injury."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Moseley argues the statute requires objective proof of harm over speculation.","V. Secret argues the statutory text does not require proof of economic injury."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Higgins to conclude his argument.","Mr. Wallace asked how consumer surveys might prove dilution."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 35-39"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the scope of federal trademark protection. It determines whether brands can sue based on perceived weakening alone. The outcome shapes how companies protect their market identity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 35-39"}]}],"slug":"2002-01-1015-moseley-v-v-secret-catalogue-inc","term":"2002","title":"Does trademark dilution require proof of actual economic injury?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 3-37"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/01-1015.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-47"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}