Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Victor and Cathy Moseley (Defendants) owned Victor’s Secret, a small retail store engaged in the sale of women’s lingerie. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (Plaintiff) is comprised of affiliated corporations that own the Victoria’s Secret trademark. Victoria’s Secret is a large and reputable retail chain also engaged in the sale of women’s lingerie. In February 1998, Defendants advertised the grand opening of their store to residents of a military installation. An army colonel saw the ad and was offended by Defendants’ use of a name so similar to Victoria’s Secret. He therefore forwarded the ad to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorney contacted Defendants, stating that the similarity in the names would likely lead to confusion and would dilute the distinctiveness of Victoria Secret’s mark. The attorney requested that Defendants discontinue the use of their name. In response, Defendants changed the name of their store to Victor’s Little Secret. Dissatisfied with the change, Plaintiff sued in District Court. The District Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.