Question: Question 3 4 1 pts 3 4 . In class, Professor Stafford presented an image of the Starbuds logo and posed a question to the

Question 34
1 pts
34. In class, Professor Stafford presented an image of the Starbuds logo and posed a question to the class along the lines of the following: "If you were legal counsel for Starbucks, would you recommend your company sue Starbuds, alleging trademark dilution?" Which of the following is false regarding this situation and dilution in general?
Starbucks is a famous mark and Starbuds attempted to capitalize on the familianity of the Starbucks mark.
Starbucks would fikely lose in a lawsuit against Starbuds because Starbuds does not compete for business with Starbucks.
The original version of the Lanham Act of 1946 was enacted to protect companies from losing business to rival companies that use confusingly similar trademarks.
The Lanham Act of 1946 was amended by passage of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to allow trademark owners to bring a lawsuit in federal court for trademark dilution.
Starbucks would likely win in a lawsuit against Starbuds because it is unnecessary to show that Starbuds competes in the same market as Starbucks.
 Question 34 1 pts 34. In class, Professor Stafford presented an

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

1 Expert Approved Answer
Step: 1 Unlock blur-text-image
Question Has Been Solved by an Expert!

Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts

Step: 2 Unlock
Step: 3 Unlock

Students Have Also Explored These Related General Management Questions!