Nevada's trademark-dilution law was modeled after the Lanham Act, which previously permitted claims based on niche fame. See Russell Rd. Food & Beverage, LLC v. Galam, 180 F.Supp.3d 724, 741-42 (D. Nev. 2016); compare 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) with NRS 600.435; see Thane, 305 F.3d at 908 (discussing origin of niche fame doctrine). The Lanham Act was later amended to prohibit claims based on niche fame.

Plaintiff s other cited authorities are inapposite. See, e.g., Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2018 WL 1900147, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2018) (finding allegations in a pleading from a related case admissible as evidence to be considered by a jury and explicitly not as binding judicial admissions); Russell Rd. Food & Beverage, LLC v. Galam, 180 F.Supp.3d 724, 738 (D. Nev. 2016) (declining to “engage in an exhaustive analysis” of the likelihood of confusion factors because the “parties do not dispute” that element and “both sides devote substantial effort to arguing that this element of trademark infringement is met”-not because of a concession in a pleading-and proceeding to analyze the factors and draw its own legal conclusion, regardless). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant American International Group, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. [166], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

[37] ¶ 5; [33] ¶ 58. The facts here more closely resemble a case Defendant relies upon, Russell Rd. Food & Beverage, LLC v. Galam , 180 F. Supp. 3d 724 (D. Nev. 2016). There, the court held that the owner of the property where a former strip club—the "Crazy Horse Too" club—was situated did not own the "Crazy Horse Too Mark."

"[A] common law infringement claim in Nevada requires the same two core elements as under federal law: (1) creation of a protectable right and (2) likelihood of confusion." Russell Rd. Food & Beverage, LLC v. Galam, 180 F. Supp. 3d 724, 744 (D. Nev. 2016) (citation omitted). Naturally, the alleged infringer must actually use a similar or identical mark in commerce to be liable for infringement.

"[A] common law infringement claim in Nevada requires the same two core elements as under federal law: (1) creation of a protectable right and (2) likelihood of confusion." Russell Rd. Food & Beverage, LLC v. Galam, 180 F. Supp. 3d 724, 744 (D. Nev. 2016) (citation omitted). Naturally, the alleged infringer must actually use a similar or identical mark in commerce to be liable for infringement.