Fact Pattern 9-2 CallTalk Corporation, a smartphone and phone-time seller, chooses to use and register “calltalk” as its domain name. Later, CallTalk’s less successful competitor, CellTalk Company, chooses to use and register “caltalk” (an intentional misspelling of “calltalk”) as its domain name. Still later, Call&Talk, Inc., uses the domain name “callltalk” (also a deliberate misspelling of “calltalk”) without CallTalk’s authorization, to sell pornographic phone conversations. Refer to Fact Pattern 9-2. CallTalk wants to sue Call&Talk for its unauthorized use of the domain name “callltalk” on a theory of trademark dilution. This claim requires proof that a)the distinctive quality of the mark has been diminished. b)consumers are likely to be confused by the names. c)the products involved are similar. d)CallTalk has registered all variations of the name “calltalk.”

Fact Pattern 9-2 CallTalk Corporation, a smartphone and phone-time seller, chooses to use and register “calltalk” as its domain name. Later, CallTalk’s less successful competitor, CellTalk Company, chooses to use and register “caltalk” (an intentional misspelling of “calltalk”) as its domain name. Still later, Call&Talk, Inc., uses the domain name “callltalk” (also a deliberate misspelling of “calltalk”) without CallTalk’s authorization, to sell pornographic phone conversations. Refer to Fact Pattern 9-2. CallTalk wants to sue Call&Talk for its unauthorized use of the domain name “callltalk” on a theory of trademark dilution. This claim requires proof that a)the distinctive quality of the mark has been diminished. b)consumers are likely to be confused by the names. c)the products involved are similar. d)CallTalk has registered all variations of the name “calltalk.”