625 So.2d 463, 470 (Fla.1993). A violation of the dilution statute may be based on either (1) a likelihood of injury to the business reputation or (2) a dilution of the distinctive quality of the trade name of the prior user. Id.; Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass’n v. Tortoise Island Realty, Inc., 790 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Regarding the first prong, injury to business reputation may be established if the second user of the trade name is not financially sound and its lack of financial reliability is then attributed to the first user, or it may be established by tarnishment of the business reputation. Glen Raven Mills, Inc. v. Ramada Int'l, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 1544, 1556 (M.D.Fla.1994); see also Blanding Auto. Ctrs., Inc. v. Blanding Auto., Inc., 568 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). In addressing the second prong, the dilution
holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests holding that evidence that appellee received complaints intended for appellant showed actual injury to business reputation holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036 recognizing that a defendants good reputation for truth and veracity may be introduced when he was impeached by evidence of bad reputation for truth and veracity holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury