## Facts

- Wedgwood developed and marketed single-family homes in eastern Washington County, Oregon for about 25 years using the trade name “Wedgwood Homes,” and advertised to associate that name with its homes.
- In 1977, Lund began operating two retirement apartment complexes for the elderly in the same general area under the assumed business names “Wedgwood Downs” and “Wedgwood Place.”
- Wedgwood sued for (1) common-law unfair competition and (2) trade-name dilution under ORS 647.107, seeking to enjoin Lund’s use of “Wedgwood.”
- Wedgwood presented survey evidence indicating favorable consumer association with “Wedgwood Homes.”
- The trial court found “Wedgwood Homes” had become locally well-known and had acquired secondary meaning, but found no likelihood of consumer confusion between the businesses.
- Despite the lack of confusion, the trial court granted an injunction under ORS 647.107 based on a likelihood of injury to reputation or dilution; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a common-law unfair-competition claim can succeed without proof of a likelihood of consumer confusion.
2. Whether “Wedgwood Homes” was sufficiently distinctive to qualify for injunctive protection under ORS 647.107.
3. Whether Lund’s use of “Wedgwood” in “Wedgwood Downs” and “Wedgwood Place” created a likelihood of dilution of any protectable distinctive quality of Wedgwood’s trade name.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court held that Wedgwood’s unfair-competition claim failed because Wedgwood did not prove a likelihood of consumer confusion.
- The court held that Wedgwood did not prove the level and type of distinctiveness required for antidilution protection under ORS 647.107.
- The court further held that the record did not establish a likelihood that Lund’s use would dilute any protectable distinctive quality of Wedgwood’s trade name.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reversed the injunction granted by the circuit court.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law unfair competition requires a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source or identity of goods or services.
- ORS 647.107 authorizes injunctive relief for a likelihood of injury to business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark or trade name, even absent competition or source confusion.
- “Distinctive” is a trademark term of art; antidilution protection is directed to trade names or marks whose identifying character is sufficiently strong to be “diluted.”
- Secondary meaning or local recognition may support distinctiveness, but goodwill or favorable association alone is insufficient to establish protectable “distinctive quality” for dilution relief.
- Dilution (including “blurring”) requires a showing that the defendant’s use is likely to whittle away the plaintiff’s protectable distinctiveness.

## Conclusion

The court vacated injunctive relief because, although Wedgwood’s name was locally known, Wedgwood did not show the kind of trademark distinctiveness and likely dilution required under Oregon’s antidilution statute, and it also failed to prove confusion required for common-law unfair competition.


Wedgwood Homes, Inc. v. Lund, 659 P.2d 377 (Or. 1983)