## Facts

- Diane Von Furstenberg Studio (DVF) designed and sold high-end women’s apparel identified by federally registered DVF trademarks.
- Catherine Snyder sold women’s dresses through eBay listings that used DVF’s marks, without DVF’s permission.
- DVF obtained at least one dress from Snyder’s online sale and determined it was not authentic DVF merchandise because the labels and trademark identifiers did not match genuine DVF goods.
- DVF filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia and obtained a temporary restraining order and an ex parte seizure order.
- Pursuant to the seizure order, DVF seized dresses bearing DVF marks and also took business and financial records from Snyder connected to the sales activity.
- After discovery and related preliminary relief, DVF moved for summary judgment on Lanham Act liability, including trademark dilution.
- Snyder argued that it would take a trained eye to distinguish the dresses she sold from genuine DVF dresses, but she also acknowledged that customers had returned some dresses due to poor workmanship.

## Issues

1. Whether DVF, as the owner of federally registered trademarks, showed on summary judgment that Snyder’s unauthorized sales of dresses bearing DVF marks on eBay constituted trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether DVF established that its marks were famous and that Snyder’s unauthorized use of those marks on counterfeit dresses was likely to cause dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
3. Whether Snyder identified a genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent summary judgment on DVF’s federal claims and related Virginia common-law claims.
4. Whether DVF was entitled to a permanent injunction to stop continued use of DVF’s marks and continued sales of counterfeit DVF-branded apparel.

## Decision

- The court granted DVF’s motion for summary judgment on liability for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and unfair competition/false designation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
- The court granted DVF summary judgment on trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), finding DVF’s marks sufficiently famous and concluding Snyder’s unauthorized use on counterfeit dresses was likely to dilute the marks’ distinctiveness and harm their reputation.
- The court rejected Snyder’s arguments as insufficient to create a material factual dispute, given the undisputed evidence that the goods were not authorized by DVF and were sold bearing DVF marks.
- The court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Snyder from using DVF’s marks and from selling or distributing counterfeit DVF-branded goods.
- The opinion resolved liability and injunctive relief; monetary relief was addressed in later proceedings in the case.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Federal trademark registration is prima facie evidence of a mark’s validity and the registrant’s ownership and exclusive right to use the mark on the registered goods.
- Trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 requires proof that the plaintiff owns a valid mark and the defendant used the mark in commerce without authorization in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- False designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) likewise turns on whether the challenged use is likely to mislead consumers about origin or affiliation.
- Trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) protects famous, distinctive marks from unauthorized uses that are likely to impair the mark’s distinctiveness (blurring) or harm the mark’s reputation (tarnishment), even without proof of actual confusion.
- Permanent injunctive relief is available in trademark cases when the plaintiff shows a continuing threat of violation and that legal remedies are inadequate to prevent ongoing harm to the mark and goodwill.

## Conclusion

In *Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder*, the Eastern District of Virginia granted DVF summary judgment on Lanham Act infringement, unfair competition, and dilution based on Snyder’s unauthorized eBay sales of counterfeit dresses bearing DVF’s marks, and the court entered a permanent injunction barring further use of DVF’s marks and further counterfeit sales; damages were left for later proceedings in the same litigation.


Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, 2007 WL 2688184 (2007)