October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1015
Does trademark dilution require proof of actual economic injury?
Victor Moseley seeks to limit trademark dilution claims to proven economic harm. V. Secret argues the statute allows relief without such proof.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 35-39
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 12, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What each side says
Moseley argues the statute requires objective proof of harm over speculation.
V. Secret argues the statutory text does not require proof of economic injury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Higgins to conclude his argument.
Mr. Wallace asked how consumer surveys might prove dilution.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 35-39
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 35-39
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 3-37 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 3-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 7-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-47
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.