Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 633 F.3d 1158

Levi Strauss owns the Arcuate back-pocket design and its federal registration; Abercrombie adopted Ruehl design with two arches and a dipsy doodle resembling infinity.
Levi Strauss alleged federal dilution under TDRA and sought only injunctive relief; the district court ruled for Abercrombie.
The advisory jury found the Ruehl and Arcuate marks were not identical or nearly identical but the district court relied on this to deny dilution.
The district court interpreted TDRA as requiring identical or nearly identical marks for dilution relief.
TDRA replaced FTDA; it lists six factors, starting with degree of similarity, and rejects the need for identity/nearness as a prerequisite.
Ninth Circuit reverses, holding the prior “identical or nearly identical” standard does not survive TDRA and remands for proceedings consistent with the TDRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TDRA requires identical or nearly identical marks.	Levi Strauss argues TDRA uses similarity, not identity.	Abercrombie argues TDRA preserves prior standard.	TDRA does not require identity; similarity suffices under six-factor test.
Whether the district court's application of an identical/near-identical standard was harmless error.	Error affected dilution analysis and balance of factors.	Error was harmless since similarity weighed similarly.	Not harmless; requires reversal and remand.
Whether the court should remand for consideration under the TDRA's proper framework.	Court should apply TDRA factors to determine likely dilution.	Law should be applied under existing record.	Remand to evaluate under TDRA framework.

Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) (origin of identical or nearly identical standard in dilution)
Luigino's, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp., 170 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 1999) (described identity/substantial similarity pre-TDRA)
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989) (dilution historically required substantial similarity)
Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (FTDA dilution test framework)
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) (FTDA dilution standard expression)
Thane Int'l., Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002) (adopted identity/near-identity under FTDA framework)
Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2008) (post-FTDA/TDRA discussion of similarity threshold)
Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n v. JSL Corp., 610 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (applied TDRA factors; not requiring identity)
Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussed similarity under evolving dilution standard)
Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (TDRA framework allows non-threshold similarity)
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2003) (Supreme Court held actual dilution required under FTDA)