plaintiff asserts a cause of action pursuant to § 368-d of the New York General Business Law. That statute provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark or trade name shall be a ground for injunctive relief in cases of infringement of a mark registered or not registered or in cases of unfair competition, notwithstanding the absence of competition between the parties or the absence of confusion as to the source of goods. N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law. § 368-d (McKinney 1984). This statute applies “only [to] those trade names which are truly of distinctive quality or which have acquired a secondary meaning in the mind of the public”. Bristol-Myers, 973 F.2d at 1049 (citations omitted); see also W.W.W. Pharmaceutical Co., 984 F.2d at 576-77 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in interpreting this statute, the
holding that in determining distinctiveness it is the association of the mark with a particular source by the ultimate consumers which is to be measurednot applicants intent in adopting the mark holding elements of rescission are 1 holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under  2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original holding that there are three elements to a dilution claim 1 a distinctive mark 2 likelihood of dilution and 3 predatory intent