WASHINGTON -- It turns out that Victor and Victoria are indeed different.
At least they're different enough for the Supreme Court to say Tuesday that a sex-toy and adult-video outfit called Victor's Little Secret was not diluting the trademark of lingerie queen Victoria's Secret.
In a unanimous decision, the justices said the Kentucky store that markets itself with a gender-bending twist on the lingerie giant's name isn't confusing consumers or hurting Victoria's Secret's ability to distinguish its goods and services.
The mere fact that Victor's Secret might evoke a mental association with the bigger company's name was not enough to prove it had violated the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, the Court said.
The decision sends the case back to a lower court, which had issued a summary judgment against Victor's Little Secret.
The case sprang from a complaint lodged by an Army colonel at Ft. Knox, Ky., who had received an advertisement from Victor's Secret for what he called "unwholesome, tawdry merchandise." He sent a copy to Victoria's Secret, and the company's lawyers asked the owners of Victor's Secret to stop using its name or any variation of it.
Victor's Secret responded by changing its name to Victor's Little Secret -- which may have been clever but not clever enough to avoid legal action.
Victoria's Secret, a unit of Limited Brands in Columbus, Ohio, sued, saying the smaller company was infringing its trademark. Lower courts agreed with Victoria's Secret's claims, but the high court said Tuesday that they had misapplied federal law.
hello there & you too