Changes

In ''Monster Energy Company v. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. and NBA Properties, Inc.'', the Monster Energy drink company opposed the new registration of trademarks by the basketball entities because Monster Energy asserted that the basketball-related marks would dilute Monster Energy's trademark of vertical scratches for its "M".  The applied-for trademarks of Maple Leaf Sports (Toronto Raptors) and the NBA feature a pattern of horizontal scratch marks.  The basketball entities prevailed in this 7-year dispute before the [[TTAB]] because Monster Energy failed to prove that its trademark was sufficiently famous among the public, rather than famous merely among customers of Monster Energy drinks (it has 35% share of the energy drink market).  Also, the TTAB held that basketball-entities' applied-for trademarks were not sufficiently similar to Monster Energy's trademark, and that people were not likely to confused to think that the basketball-related marks related to an energy drink sold by Monster Energy.

In ''Monster Energy Company v. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. and NBA Properties, Inc.'', the Monster Energy drink company opposed the new registration of trademarks by the basketball entities because Monster Energy asserted that the basketball-related marks would dilute Monster Energy's trademark of vertical scratches for its "M".  The applied-for trademarks of Maple Leaf Sports (Toronto Raptors) and the NBA feature a pattern of horizontal scratch marks.  The basketball entities prevailed in this 7-year dispute before the [[TTAB]] because Monster Energy failed to prove that its trademark was sufficiently famous among the public, rather than famous merely among customers of Monster Energy drinks (it has 35% share of the energy drink market).  Also, the TTAB held that basketball-entities' applied-for trademarks were not sufficiently similar to Monster Energy's trademark, and that people were not likely to confused to think that the basketball-related marks related to an energy drink sold by Monster Energy.

"Xerox" was a classic, famous trademark.

An example of a class, famous trademark is "Xerox".

But note that under state law a claim for dilution may be brought even if the mark is not famous.  Dilution claims may be asserted under state law if:<ref>''Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'', 875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989).</ref>

But note that under state law a claim for dilution may be brought even if the mark is not famous.  Dilution claims may be asserted under state law if:<ref>''Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'', 875 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1989).</ref>