42 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1053, 1062 (N.D.Ill.1996)). Contributory dilution has not been recognized in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, even the one district court in this circuit that mentioned the doctrine acknowledged that it is somewhat “novel.” Steinway, Inc. v. Ashley, No. 01 Civ. 9703(GEL), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1372, at *7, 2002 WL 122929, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2002) (denying motion to dismiss on contributory infringement claim). However, even assuming arguendo that a contributory dilution claim exists, it would fail for the reasons set forth above with respect to Tiffany’s contributory infringement claims. See id. (stating that claim for contributory dilution is “novel” and that claim would be analogous to contributory infringement); Lockheed Martin, 194 F.3d at 986 (<HOLDING>); Lockheed Martin, 175 F.R.D. at 646 (noting
recognizing cause of action recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action for wrongful death holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review recognizing that no appellate court or statute has yet established the cause of action for contributory dilution and that it would require proof of encouraging others to dilute