Oct 24, 2025

diluting trademark rights the insurer holds in the name of its famous nature TV show. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gangsta Dog LLC , No. 25-cv-623, complaint filed (D. Neb. Oct. 21, 2025). Mutual of Omaha's suit, filed Oct. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, claims Virginia-based Gangsta Dog LLC's unauthorized use of the "Wild Kingdom" name is likely to harm the reputation of the insurer's trademarks, a type of dilution known as tarnishment. It also says Gangsta Dog is likely to impair the distinctiveness of those marks by causing the public to associate "Wild Kingdom" with dog food and not the goods and services listed in Mutual of Omaha's federal trademark registrations, an effect known as blurring. 'Cultural touchstone' According to the complaint, Mutual of Omaha has sponsored the "Wild Kingdom" television program since 1963 as part of a long-standing commitment to wildlife conservation. The original program aired for 25 years, drawing an average of 34 million viewers at its peak and becoming a "cultural touchstone" that inspired generations of conservationists, the complaint says. The insurer says it has spent over $135 million developing and promoting the program and has continuously used the "Wild Kingdom" mark on merchandise and in other media since the show's primetime run ended in 1988. These efforts include a modernized version of the show on Animal Planet, a YouTube channel with over 250,000 followers and a new series currently airing on NBC. As a result of its long-term, extensive use, the "Wild Kingdom" mark has become famous and is exclusively associated with Mutual of Omaha, the company alleges. Suit: Not infringement, but dilution Of note, Mutual of Omaha is not alleging infringement of any of its federally registered "Wild Kingdom" marks, which it holds in categories covering entertainment services, plush toys, clothing and other products. Rather, the insurer says Gangsta Dog has been knowingly diluting those marks since it began selling dog food under the "Wild Kingdom" brand. The complaint says the date that Gangsta Dog started using the brand is unclear, but the dog food company's owner applied to federally register its own "Wild Kingdom" mark in July, listing 2011 as the year the company first used the mark in commerce. The suit also claims Gangsta Dog's food contains ingredients such as buffalo meal. This use of the "Wild Kingdom" name on a product made from animals that have been featured in episodes of the program harms the mark's positive associations and reputation, the complaint says. Mutual of Omaha says it asked Gangsta Dog to cease using the name, but the Virginia company refused. The complaint says Gangsta Dog's alleged causation of blurring and tarnishment violates Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) , and Nebraska state law. The insurer is seeking compensatory and treble damages, as well as a permanent injunction to prohibit Gangsta Dog from using the "Wild Kingdom" name. Timothy J. Thalken of Fraser Stryker PC LLO and Edmund J. Haughey of Venable LLP represent Mutual of Omaha. By Westlaw Today