Though fame be narrow, FTDA protection holds; some courts will protect from dilution marks that are known only locally or industrywide
Article Abstract:
Rulings under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) of 1996 have started protecting marks that have become famous within small regions or industries. Trademark dilution was under the aegis of state law before the FTDA, and when the law was enacted the states which were home to the major corporations, about 25 in all, had dilution laws. The FTDA was deemed necessary to deal with judicial reluctance to enter nationwide injunctions to diluting uses and to provide owners of famous marks an alternative to all the various state laws.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Federalization trend culminates in dilution law; the Trademark Dilution Act may render state laws obsolete but fails to define some vital terms
Article Abstract:
The Trademark Dilution Law of 1995 completes the federalization of trademark and unfair competition law, though certain ambiguities in the new law leave its ultimate application uncertain. It has a higher standard of proof than most state dilution laws, addressing marks that 'cause' dilution rather than looking to the 'likelihood' of dilution. If a defendant files a federal application based on intent to use before the plaintiff's mark achieves fame, but only starts using afterwards, the legal result is unclear.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Dilution legislation is urged
Article Abstract:
Anti-dilution laws shield trademark holders from a slippage of the distinctive attributes of their marks. They are generally applied when a similar mark is used on different goods or services. There is no federal anti-dilution law. In 1988, Congress considered an anti-dilution provision as part of the Trademark Law Revision Act (TLRA), but the anti-dilution portion was not included as part of the measure passed. It would have been codified as Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: HMO legislation is aimed at protecting patients; consumers and providers call for regulation; the managed care industry would disagree
- Abstracts: The high court erases a stigma. Decisions expand equal protection rights; court ends exclusion of women at VMI and grants equal protection status to gay men and lesbians
- Abstracts: In the recently passed appropriations bill, Congress clarified when lenders and fiduciaries are liable under CERCLA for cleanup of property held as collateral