By Jonathan D. Salant
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - What's in a name?

Would a company called Rolls Royce Bicycles harm the reputation of the famous luxury cars? Would Kodak's cameras suffer if another firm called itself Kodak Pianos? And does an Elizabethtown, Ky., adult novelty store known as Victor's Little Secret hurt the image of the giant Victoria's Secret lingerie chain?

Only the last question was before the Supreme Court Tuesday as the nine justices heard arguments on whether the small store that sells sex toys, adult videos and lingerie for men and women is hurting the trademark of the national chain.

A federal appeals court had ruled that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act protects Victoria's Secret.

Justices questioned both sides as to when a similar name would hurt an established business.

"Some small shop wants to start a bug-spraying business," Justice Stephen Breyer said. "And they decide to call this `Bugweiser bug spray.' And their slogan is `Where there's life, there's bugs.' Budweiser has an interest because the people who are going to see this are going to think, `Budweiser, ugh.' And they don't want people to think that."

James R. Higgins Jr., representing Victor's Little Secret, said there needed to be some evidence, such as a survey, proving that a well-known business would be hurt.

He argued that several well-known businesses had identical names, such as Apple Computers and The Beatles' Apple Records, or Delta Air Lines and Delta faucets. "Not even every identical use leads to dilution in the mind of consumers," he said.

"I don't understand what your position is? What precisely do you want to show?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

"We do demand that the plaintiff show our (trade)mark is harming them," Mr. Higgins responded.

When Victoria's Secret lawyer Walter E. Dellinger began his presentation, Justice Breyer asked how a small store could hurt his large client.

"The customers of Victor's do associate Victor's with Victoria's, but they think none the less of Victoria's," Justice Breyer said. "The people who go to Victoria's don't know or don't care or have never heard of Victor's."

Mr. Dellinger contended that proliferation of businesses with similar names would hurt his client.

"If there can be one store under Victor's Little Secret, there could be thousands," Mr. Dellinger said. "If you imagine hundreds of different uses, the public's perception is going to be lessened.

"If Rolls Royce were on 100 different products, it would not mean anything, and they might as well call their car a Yugo."

The case marked the final appearance of Lawrence Wallace, deputy U.S. solicitor general, who was making his 157th argument before the Supreme Court

Similar names, Mr. Wallace argued, don't necessarily harm the better-known company. A survey or other method could help determine whether a company with a well-known trademark is hurt by another company with a similar name, Mr. Wallace said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist praised Mr. Wallace before the Syracuse, N.Y., native began to present his arguments.

After thanking Mr. Wallace, Justice Rehnquist added: "That doesn't mean we're going to rule in your favor."