LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

antidilution act

Read a random definition: take away

A quick definition of antidilution act:

An antidilution act is a law that prevents others from using a famous trademark in a way that could weaken its ability to identify and distinguish goods and services. This law is not concerned with whether the use creates confusion or deception. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act and many state laws provide protection against the commercial use of a famous mark that could dilute its distinctive quality.

A more thorough explanation:

The Antidilution Act is a law that protects famous trademarks from being weakened or diminished by other commercial uses. This law does not require that the use of the trademark creates confusion or deception, only that it lessens the trademark's ability to identify and distinguish goods and services.

For example, if a company started using the Nike swoosh logo on their own products, even if they were not in the same industry as Nike, it could be considered a violation of the Antidilution Act. This is because the use of the famous Nike logo could weaken its ability to identify and distinguish Nike's products from others.

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act is one example of an Antidilution Act. Many states also have their own versions of this law based on the International Trademark Association's 1964 Model State Trademark Bill.

antidestruction clause | antidilution provision

General

General chat about the legal profession.

General >T14 Off Topic

👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎

WorthlessAttractiveZombie

12:46

I’m gonna drink a bottle of Jack for every rejection

babycat

12:47

call me curious George the way I be asking questions

babycat

12:47

actually the opposite of thinking about myself I just want to see what other people think

EvolBunny

12:48

@texaslawhopefully: is washu the entire t20? Or notorious for letting applicants redact gpa or lsat? Like okay i guess washu, what about the rest? Buddy literally said he is a nothing candidate except high lsat. No EC, WE, minority status, right skin color, military, in state, etc. That means he will be fucked by the t20, except maybe washu

BruceSutter

12:49

I also never said I only wanted to go to a T20

[] texaslawhopefully

12:49

@EvolBunny: You're stupid af. Did you read what he said. He said fucking WashU.

[] texaslawhopefully

12:50

And, yes, most people with a 170+ will go to the T20 because at the very least since the T20 pretty much all has a 170+ LSAT median they need at least 3k people a year with a 170+ to maintain those medians (given about 6k people enroll in the T20).

[] texaslawhopefully

12:50

And there's only 4k people a year with a 170+.

BulbasaurNoLikeCardio

12:50

@babycat: That KJD question is a legit one, I wonder if there is enough data out there to show it as there is data that makes people think URM is a point boost

HopefullyInLawSchool

12:52

I just got my second decision of the day (:

EvolBunny

12:52

you are a fucking idiot, Do you think every 170+ is in the t20? Some people want to inherit daddy's judge position and local connections and only needed a 155 but shit out a 173. Okay, go look at the schools yourself. Surely you will find ONLY 170s in the t20 and nowhere else! fucking tool. Also, there are only 4400ish people in the t14 and the median is like 171 lmfao they do not want ONLY 170+s

starfishies

12:52

unless you participated in a million clubs or had legit internships idk how kjds do so well honestly

starfishies

12:53

nothing against kjds just heard a ton of advice that you should work before applying

[] texaslawhopefully

12:53

@EvolBunny: I said the vast majority dumbass. There's only 4k people with a 170+ and 6k people in the T20. The lowest LSAT median in the T20 is 169, so yes the vast majority of people (as in 70ish percent) with a 170+ are going to the T14.

babycat

12:53

I think some of that comes from a feeling that law school is a major commitment and you should be sure about it moreso than the value of the work experience

babycat

12:54

@BulbasaurNoLikeCardio: right? would love to see some analysis on this

babycat

12:55

I feel like as you get more WE you have diminishing returns. Not sure someone with 20 years of work is valued more than 5 or 10 unless it's been ground-breaking stuff

babycat

12:57

realizing now the correct spelling of groundbreaking is unhyphenated. I knew it looked wrong

BulbasaurNoLikeCardio

12:57

I think it has to be proffesional or law related kind of work experience to mean anything significant. Entry level assistant jobs people get fresh from college has to be like ehhhh.

JumpySubsequentDolphin

12:58

@babycat: I think Dean z did a podcast on this

babycat

12:58

I don't really trust what she says 100% of the time. I think there's an impulse to say things because they sound nice and fair even if they're not true

EvolBunny

12:59

texas law, you are clearly a humanities idiot who never dealt with stats and i will no longer be engaging your dumbass on this topic

JumpySubsequentDolphin

12:59

oh yeah for sure

[] texaslawhopefully

12:59

@EvolBunny: that's rich coming from the person with a 163 LSAT score

[] texaslawhopefully

13:00

but, hey, if you can't understand medians, your loss

JumpySubsequentDolphin

13:00

don’t engage Texas not worth jt

BruceSutter

13:00

I think work experience helps in two different ways. One is showing maturity, and the other is doing something difficult/challenging.

BulbasaurNoLikeCardio

13:00

Dean Z can only speak to her school and when she is in charge. Does not apply to other schools fully. Talked to a few deans of admissions and they say ignore all the social media deans because they can't speak for how other schools operate

jackfrost11770

13:00

damn getting heated and yeah no worth engaging

babycat

13:00

Lmao I ignore all the social media deans already

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.