By Ray Cooklis
Cincinnati Enquirer

Victor can keep his little secret, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week that limits how far firms can go to protect trademarks.

In 1998, Victor and Carol Moseley of Elizabethtown, Ky. opened an adult-products store coyly named "Victor's Secret." When lingerie retailer Victoria's Secret complained, they changed it to "Victor's Little Secret." Victoria's Secret sued anyway, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati agreed the little store was harming the unmentionables giant's trademark. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that this was nonsense. The name, wrote Justice John Paul Stevens, "neither confused any consumers or potential consumers, nor was likely to do so."

At issue here was the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act, meant to protect against name encroachment. But it defines dilution as a "lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services," and it was a stretch to argue that little Victor lessened Victoria's Secret's capacity to do anything.

This welcome decision protects an important free-speech principle and helps strike a better balance between corporate and individual interests. An obvious parody, even for commercial purposes, can be protected. The court said as much earlier this year when it refused to let Mattel continue a trademark dilution suit against record company MCA over a song about the toy maker's Barbie doll.

Since 1996, companies have been so aggressive on the dilution issue that they've even been going after non-commercial uses. Remember last fall's "TaftQuack" flap? Insurance firm AFLAC sued Ohio gubernatorial candidate Tim Hagan's campaign over its Internet duck parody of Gov. Bob Taft, lamely arguing that a cartoon duck with Taft's face looked and sounded too much like the duck in AFLAC commercials. It was a ridiculous argument, and the suit was tossed out. But it exemplified a trend that has given us such gratuitous legal actions as Hormel suing over a Muppet character named "Spa'am."

Well, now the secret is out, and the Supreme Court has put the brakes on attempts to stifle creative name games. Sounds like a Victor-y.