Victor/Victorious

The Supremes have ruled near unanimously (Scalia joining 2/3 of the opinion) in the case of Victoria's Secret vs. a dirty book store named "Victor's Little Secret," formerly known simply as "Victor's Secret." As the opinion details, a colonel from nearby Fort Knox saw the smut shop's ad, took offense, and dutifully notified the lingerie giant, who sued on the grounds that Victor was diluting their trademark. Victor's Secret did sell lingerie among other tawdry wares, but as the court suggests, the likelihood of a Victoria's Secret shopper inadvertently mistaking Victor's Secret (Little or otherwise) for the lingerie store was practically nil. So, oddly, the Court seems biased in favor of the "little guy," (in this case, Victor) in the case of trademark, while deferring to corporate interests in copyright cases. The opinion is available at Cornell's Supreme Court archive. Thanks to Ann Bartow for the heads-up via one of my many, many e-mail lists.