> But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But d

> But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But dilution and tarnishment can occur in the same class. From 15 USC § 1125 (c) (1): "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.? > And not so much trademark as trade dress. Yes, both trademark and trade dress could come into play here. Trademarks come in because the name "Starbucks" and the logo were used (and possibly in relation to other marks, depending on the facts). Trade dress usually refers to more nebulous attributes that software people would call "look and feel." It's relevant to this case because the overall design aesthetics of Dumb Starbucks mimics that of Starbucks.