True or false with explanations:

MasterCard International v. Nader 2000 Primary Committee, Inc., 2004 WL 434404 (S.D. N.Y.2004) (Mallor 15^th Ed. p. 256) (LEB, Fall 2014, Exam 4, Case 8)

MasterCard International, Inc., issues credit cards through more than 23,000 banks and other financial institutions. Since 1997, MasterCard has aired television commercials that have come to be known as the "Priceless Advertisements." These advertisements include a sequence of names and pictures of goods and services purchased by persons using their credit cards. Voiceovers and visual displays convey to the viewer the prices of these items. Each Priceless Advertisement concludes with mention of a priceless intangible that cannot be purchased (e.g., "a day where all you have to do is breathe"). The reference to the priceless intangible is followed with this statement: "Priceless. There are some things money can't buy. For everything else there's MasterCard."

In August 2000, it came to MasterCard's attention that Ralph Nader's campaign committee was promoting Nader's presidential campaign through use of a television advertisement that bore similarities to MasterCard's commercials. Nader's political advertisement listed this series of items and their supposed prices:

- Grilled tenderloin for fund-raiser: $1,000 a plate.

- Campaign ads filled with half-truths: $10 million.

- Promises to special interest groups: over $100 billion.

The advertisement concluded with "[f]inding out the truth: priceless. There are some things that money can't buy." Besides being aired on television during a period of roughly two weeks in August 2000, the Nader advertisement appeared on the candidate's website during the remainder of the 2000 presidential campaign.

MasterCard complained to Nader's campaign organization about the Nader advertisement's similarity to the long-running MasterCard commercials, suggested in a letter that the Nader campaign develop a more "original" advertisement, and threatened litigation if use of the Nader advertisement continued. It soon became clear that there would be no agreement to resolve the dispute. Therefore, MasterCard filed suit against Nader and his campaign organization.

1. MasterCard has a two pronged complaint against the Nader campaign: it infringed or diluted its "Priceless" trademark and it infringed on its copyrighted television ads.
2. MasterCard should not succeed in its trademark infringement claim, because there is little likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the source, origin, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation of the "Priceless" identifier.
3. MasterCard should succeed in its trademark dilution claim, because the Nader's campaign use of "Priceless" trademark whittles away at its distinctiveness.
4. MasterCard will not likely succeed in its copyright infringement claim, because there is no direct copying of the advertisements text and borrowing from MasterCard's copyrighted advertisements can be deemed to be fair use.
5. The maximum potential life of MasterCard's copyright on its "Priceless" advertisements is longer than the life of MasterCard's trademark on its "Priceless" tagline.