It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. 1 . Dilution is discussed infra. 2 . See also Junior Food Stores of W. Fla., Inc. v. Jr. Food Stores, Inc., 226 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 1969) (denying injunction of trade name use, noting that mere confusion shown by postal, sales, and delivery persons is not sufficient for injunction. "The test is satisfied when it is shown by one seeking injunctive relief that, because of a similarity of tradenames, potential customers of the first appropriator of a tradename actually do business with a second appropriator under the mistaken impression that they are doing business with the first appropriator.”); Williamson v. Answer Phone of Jacksonville, Inc., 118 So.2d 248, 251-52 (Fla. 1st DCA1960) (<HOLDING>); cf. Richard Store Co. v. Richard's Warehouse
holding the court cannot find intent where the consent judgment fails to mention the cause of action recognizing cause of action recognizing the cause of action holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves  possess a common and generally accepted meaning recognizing that descriptive and generic words generally cannot be exclusively appropriated and that where intent to defraud the public is alleged a cause of action is stated