Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 191 F.3d 208, 215 n. 1 (2d Cir.1999) (stating that federal and New York dilution statutes are “analogous”); NBA Props. v. Untertainment Records LLC, No. 99 Civ. 2933(HB), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7780, at *21, 1999 WL 335147, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1999) (stating that FTDA “mirrors” New York statute). While the Second Circuit has cautioned district courts that “it is not clear that the [New York] statute is coextensive with the [TDRA],” Starbucks Corp., 477 F.3d at 766, both the federal and the state statutes require that plaintiffs show a likelihood of dilution, rather than actual dilution. Moreover, the state and federal statutes both require that plaintiffs show that defendants have used the mark in commerce. See FragranceNet.com, 493 F.Supp.2d at 548 (<HOLDING>). Thus, while the two statutes may not be
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident recognizing that plaintiff failed to prove a violation of the law of the land clause in the north carolina constitution because pjlaintiffs were unable to establish a federal due process violation and the constitutional claims state and federal are analyzed the same way holding that the use requirement exists for  proposed state law claims and is analyzed in the same manner as under the federal claims recognizing that claims arising under the ihra are analyzed under the same standards as title vii claims