from diluting or misappropriating Plaintiffs trademark. To succeed on this claim, Plaintiff would have to prove that Defendant Hensley diluted or misappropriated their trademark — the same exact issue as in the failed trademark infringement claim. According to the analysis in Part IV-I, supra, the use of Defendant Hensley’s name qualifies as “fair use” even accepting all of Plaintiffs plead facts as true. Plaintiffs alleged trademarks were therefore not misappropriated. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distributing, Inc., 2008 WL 1735371 (E.D.Mich.2008) (“misappropriation” is the same as “infringement” in a trademark claim). As for a claim of dilution, the Court applies a more stringent standard than in the infringement context, AutoZone v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786, 806 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), and the finding of “fair use” likewise
holding that high degree of similarity between extraneous and charged offense used in cases proving modus operandi not required when purpose of proof is to show intent holding that the plaintiffs earlier claims of infringement by possession and its later claims of infringement by use of its source code arose from the same nucleus of operative facts and therefore the later claims were barred by res judicata holding that a higher degree of similarity than is necessary in infringement claims holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement