Pages

11 April 2008

Trademark Dilution Explained

Everything you ever wanted to know about the law of the trademark dilution in the United States can be found at the online proceedings of a recent conference on the topic.

Trademark dilution is a concern because on its face it is a very broad prohibition on free speech, so its limitations, such as a use requirement are critical:

Unlike traditional trademark infringement – in which confusion over source or sponsorship lies at the heart of the claim – dilution turns on murkier concepts of “blurring” and “tarnishment” that do not on their face depend on consumer perceptions as to the source of a defendant’s product. Dilution, moreover, does not involve deceptive or confusing speech, or any “fraud on the consuming public.” As a result, a broad, open-ended dilution statute could target any unauthorized use of a famous trademark, almost without limitation.


Dilution by tarnishment, which is use of a trademark not otherwise infringing which gives a trademark a negative association commercially, is problematic from a free speech perspective.

Tarnishment is defined as a third party use that creates an association that “harms the reputation of the famous mark.” Although this clarifies that dilution by tarnishment is indeed actionable, the definition is hardly self-limiting, a feature that has always made tarnishment potentially overbroad. And the lack of any articulated theoretical basis for tarnishment means that courts cannot infer limits by providing a purposive gloss to the definition. Instead, courts seeking to cabin the tarnishment cause of action will likely rely on the revised affirmative defenses or develop a trademark use requirement (discussed below). A theoretical basis for those defenses does exist (e.g., free speech values), even if their application is often contested.


The 2006 statutory reform of trademark dilution does include, at least, a statutory fair use defense.

No comments:

Post a Comment