Under the trademark dilution revision act, a plaintiff must prove that
1. the plaintiff owns a mark that is distinctive;
2. the defendant has begun using a mark that is the famous mark;
3. the similarity between the defendant’s mark and the famous mark gives rise to an between the marks; and
4. this is likely to the distinctiveness of the famous mark or result in harm to its reputation.

An attorney came to work on a saturday. when he signed in, he was advised by the morning security guard employed by the building management that he must be out of the building by 5 p.m., when it closes. however, he stayed past 5 p.m. to complete a brief that had to be filed on monday morning. at 5: 15 p.m., the afternoon security guard set the locks on all the doors of the building and left. because she was in a hurry, she did not check the sign-in sheet to make sure that everyone had signed out, contrary to mandatory procedures. when the attorney tried to exit 15 minutes later, he discovered that the doors were all locked and could not be opened from the inside. he used his cell phone to call for , and a supervisor from the building arrived and let him out shortly thereafter. if the attorney sues the building management for false imprisonment, is he likely to win?