Misplaced Pages

#230769

75-406: Trademark dilution occurs when a use of a trademark by someone other than its owner impairs the mark's distinctiveness, whether or not the mark is used on a competing product or in a way that is likely to cause customer confusion. A distinction is made between trademark dilution and trademark infringement . Infringement occurs when someone other than a trademark's owner uses the mark in a way that

150-592: A "first-to-file" system, which grants rights to the first entity to register the mark. However, well-known trademarks are an exception, as they may receive protection even without registration. In contrast, a few countries, like the United States, Canada, and Australia, follow a "first-to-use" or hybrid system, where using the mark in commerce can establish certain rights, even without registration. However, registration in these countries still provides stronger legal protection and enforcement. For example, in

225-488: A New Hampshire-based coffee company, sold its coffee under the trademarks that included the words "Charbucks Blend" and "Mr. Charbucks," Starbucks Corporation sued, claiming that the use of the word "Charbucks" diluted the "Starbucks" mark by both blurring and tarnishment. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided that marks need not be "substantially similar" under the FTDA for dilution to occur when other factors supporting

300-444: A company or product. A trademark, by contrast, offers legal protection for a brand with enforceable rights over the brand's identity and distinguishing elements. Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection , by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate

375-467: A competitor uses the same or a confusingly similar trademark for the same or similar products in a jurisdiction where the trademark is protected. This concept is recognized in many jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, and other countries, though specific legal standards may vary. To establish trademark infringement in court, the plaintiff generally must show: Trademark

450-630: A distinctive label or ticket'. In the United States , Congress first attempted to establish a federal trademark regime in 1870. This statute purported to be an exercise of Congress' Copyright Clause powers. However, the Supreme Court struck down the 1870 statute in the Trade-Mark Cases later on in the decade. In 1881, Congress passed a new trademark act, this time according to its Commerce Clause powers. Congress revised

525-508: A finding of dilution, such as the distinctiveness of the famous mark and the degree of its recognition, were present. In its decision, the court found that these other factors may be sufficient to support a dilution claim and remanded the case to the district court in order to determine whether dilution had in fact occurred. The district court ruled that sales of Charbucks did not violate the trademark and could continue. Trademark A trademark (also written trade mark or trade-mark )

600-437: A generic product or service name. They should stand out from the surrounding text using capital letters, bold type, italics, color, underlining, quotation marks, or a unique stylized format. For example, say “LEGO® toy blocks” instead of “Lego’s.” A trademark may be designated by the following symbols: While ™ and ℠ apply to unregistered marks (™ for goods and ℠ for services), the ® symbol indicates official registration with

675-579: A likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product or service being identified by the allegedly infringing use: it is highly unlikely a likelihood of confusion will be found if the products or services are in unrelated markets. With a famous mark, any other use has the potential for confusion, since consumers may assume affiliation with the owner of the mark regardless of the product or service. Trademark law traditionally concerned itself with situations where an unauthorized party sold goods that are directly competitive with or at least related to those sold by

750-615: A likelihood of confusion. It remains to be seen how courts and the Trademark Office will interpret this new federal law, which has potentially far-reaching applications. Trademark dilution Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept giving the owner of a famous trademark standing to forbid others from using that mark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of

825-609: A loss of rights in the trademark. It is still possible to make significant changes to the underlying goods or services during a sale without jeopardizing the trademark, but companies will often contract with the sellers to help transition the mark and goods or services to the new owners to ensure continuity of the trademark. Trademarks are often confused with patents and copyrights . Although all three laws protect forms of intangible property, collectively known as intellectual property (IP), they each have different purposes and objectives: Among these types of IP, only trademark law offers

SECTION 10

#1732801012231

900-411: A use of a trade mark contrary to subsection (1), the court may decline to order the recovery of damages or profits and may permit the defendant to continue to sell wares marked with the trade-mark that were in his possession or under his control at the time notice was given to him that the owner of the registered trade-mark complained of the use of the trade-mark. It is commonly acknowledged that goodwill

975-701: A whole. Trademark protection does not apply to utilitarian features of a product such as the plastic interlocking studs on Lego bricks. The earliest examples of use of markings date back to around 15,000 years ago in Prehistory . Similar to branding practices, the Lascaux cave paintings in France, for instance, depict bulls with marks, which experts believe may have served as personal marks to indicate livestock ownership. Around 6,000 years ago, Egyptian masonry featured quarry marks and stonecutters' signs to identify

1050-493: Is "escalator," which was once a trademark. In contrast, patents have a fixed term, typically lasting 20 years from the filing date, after which the invention enters the public domain. Copyrights generally last for the life of the author plus an additional 50 to 70 years (depending on the jurisdiction), after which the protected work enters the public domain. Although intellectual property laws such as these are theoretically distinct, more than one type may afford protection to

1125-417: Is a form of intellectual property that consists of a word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. Trademarks can also extend to non-traditional marks like drawings, symbols, 3D shapes like product designs or packaging, sounds, scents, or specific colors used to create a unique identity. For example, Pepsi®

1200-501: Is a registered trademark associated with soft drinks, and the distinctive shape of the Coca-Cola® bottle is a registered trademark protecting Coca-Cola's packaging design. The primary function of a trademark is to identify the source of goods or services and prevent consumers from confusing them with those from other sources. Legal protection for trademarks is typically secured through registration with governmental agencies, such as

1275-463: Is constituted by the reputation of a trade mark and its persuasive effect. In the Clairol case, the court stated that goodwill can be depreciated through "reduction of the esteem in which the mark itself is held or through the direct persuasion and enticing of customers who could otherwise be expected to buy or continue to buy goods bearing the trade mark". The court added that the test of confusion

1350-482: Is distributed solely in their physical team stores of their former controversial Native American logos , both to maintain the trademarks and prevent others from usurping them, and to null the further use of those logos in public. Dilution is sometimes divided into two related concepts: blurring, or essentially basic dilution, which "blurs" a mark from association with only one product to signify other products in other markets (such as "Kodak shoes"); and tarnishment, which

1425-435: Is inherently distinctive (able to identify and distinguish a single source of goods or services), often falling into categories such as suggestive, fanciful, or arbitrary, and is therefore registerable. In contrast, weak trademarks tend to be either descriptive or generic and may not be registerable. The registration process typically begins with a trademark clearance search to identify potential conflicts that could prevent

1500-455: Is irrelevant here and that the "test is the likelihood of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade mark" and that this result could be obtained without actual deception/confusion. S. 22 thus steps where confusion fails to tread. Even if there is no actual risk that the consumer might be confused between the two products, the trade mark owner will still be able to prevent another person from using his/her trade mark if that use

1575-557: Is likely to cause customer confusion. For example, if someone other than the Kodak corporation started marketing film under the mark KODAK, customers would probably be confused, because customers have come to associate KODAK film with a specific source and would probably believe that any KODAK film they see comes from that source. If however, another company started marketing KODAK brand pianos, there might be little or no customer confusion, because customers would probably recognize that Kodak

SECTION 20

#1732801012231

1650-510: Is likely to depreciate the value of the trade mark. In the Veuve Clicquot case, the trade mark of the famous French champagne was used by a small chain of women's clothing store that was trading in eastern Quebec and Ottawa. According to the court, s. 22 applies even where a defendant's wares or services do not compete with the plaintiff's and their mark are not identical. The marks were not identical ("Cliquot" and "Veuve clicquot") and

1725-425: Is no dilution statute. Nevertheless, what constitutes a "famous" mark is likely to generate controversy in the courts and in the Trademark Office and may well slow the trademark clearance and registration process, as parties seek to settle what constitutes a "famous" mark. In addition, courts have traditionally dismissed state dilution claims unless there is also a finding of infringement or unfair competition based upon

1800-495: Is not enough. The use must actually have caused depreciation". The use of Section 22 was restricted in the Clairol case to the use "in the technical trade-mark sense". For example, unions are allowed to use the trade mark to caricature because caricature or criticism is not a trade mark infringement, nor event a use of the trade mark, if it occurs outside "the normal course of trade". (see also The Michelin v CAW case. In that case,

1875-503: Is required to act as the "basic mark." In the international application, the trademark owner can designate one or more Madrid System Member countries for protection. Each designated country’s trademark office will review the Madrid application under its local laws to grant or refuse protection. In the United States, for example, a trademark must first be registered or pending with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to serve as

1950-466: Is subject to various defenses, such as abandonment, limitations on geographic scope , and fair use. In the United States, the fair use defense protects many of the interests in free expression related to those protected by the First Amendment . Fair use may be asserted on two grounds, either that the alleged infringer is using the mark to describe accurately an aspect of its products, or that

2025-509: Is the weakening of a mark through unsavory or unflattering associations. Not all dilution protection laws recognize tarnishment as an included concept. In Canada, the legal basis can be found in s. 22 of the Trade-marks Act : 22 . (1) no person shall use a trade mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto. (2) In any action in respect of

2100-559: Is unlikely to branch into the piano business or to use its film brand name on pianos. So customers would probably recognize that the KODAK pianos come from a different source. However, the KODAK pianos might still harm Kodak, because it would lessen the strong association, which the company has spent billions of dollars creating, between the word KODAK and film. Some customers, upon seeing the mark KODAK, would no longer instantly think of film—some would think of pianos instead. This lessening of

2175-606: Is used to refer to both trademarks and service marks. Similarly, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines a trademark as a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. WIPO administers the Madrid Protocol , which allows trademark owners worldwide to file one application to register their trademark in multiple countries. Almost anything that identifies

2250-647: The Paris Convention and the Madrid Protocol , simplify the registration and protection of trademarks across multiple countries. Additionally, the TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards for trademark protection and enforcement that all member countries must follow. The term trademark can also be spelled trade mark in regions such as the EU, UK, and Australia, and as trade-mark in Canada. Despite

2325-592: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Registration provides the owner certain exclusive rights and provides legal remedies against unauthorized use by others. Trademark laws vary by jurisdiction but generally allow owners to enforce their rights against infringement, dilution, or unfair competition. International agreements, such as

Federal Trademark Dilution Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2400-646: The "basic mark" necessary for Madrid filings. The trademark registration process with the USPTO generally follows these steps: Trademark owners seeking protection in multiple jurisdictions have two options: the Paris route, under the Paris Convention , or the Madrid System , which is administered by WIPO . The Paris route, covering 180 countries and also known as the "direct route," requires filing separate applications with each country’s IP office. In contrast,

2475-421: The "whittling away" of distinctiveness caused by the unauthorized use of a mark on dissimilar products; while "tarnishment" involves an unauthorized use of a mark which links it to products that are of poor quality or which is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context that is likely to reflect adversely upon the owner's product. The legislative history suggests that both of these concepts are encompassed within

2550-429: The European Union requires "genuine use" of the mark within a continuous five-year period following registration to maintain the trademark, with non-use potentially resulting in revocation. The trademark owner must enforce their rights to preserve the trademark's distinctiveness , prevent trademark infringement, and avoid dilution. Enforcement after registration generally involves: Trademark infringement occurs when

2625-481: The FTDA took effect on October 6, 2006. The Act still protects only famous marks. However, Congress amended the act so that it expressly provides protection against a use of a mark that is "likely" to cause dilution. The new statute thus eliminates the requirement of proving "actual dilution." In addition, the amended statute specifically protects against dilution by "blurring" and dilution by "tarnishment." Dilution by "tarnishment" occurs when association arising from

2700-468: The Madrid System streamlines the process by allowing a single Madrid application, built on an existing or applied-for national or regional registration (the "basic mark"), to extend protection to up to 131 countries. Unlike patents and copyrights , which have fixed expiration dates, trademark registrations typically have an initial term of 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely, as long as

2775-577: The Roman Empire. Other notable trademarks that have been used for a long time include Stella Artois , which claims use of its mark since 1366, and Löwenbräu , which claims use of its lion mark since 1383. The first trademark legislation was passed by the Parliament of England under the reign of King Henry III in 1266, which required all bakers to use a distinctive mark for the bread they sold. The first modern trademark laws emerged in

2850-404: The Supreme Court, protected only against "actual" dilution of a trademark, whereas most state statutes provided trademark owners with a remedy whenever they could show a "likelihood" of dilution. (3) The Supreme Court suggested (although it did not have occasion to hold) that the FTDA protected only against dilution by "blurring" and not against dilution by "tarnishment" (see below). Amendments to

2925-528: The Trademark Act in 1905. The Lanham Act of 1946 updated the law and has served, with several amendments, as the primary federal law on trademarks. The Trade Marks Act 1938 in the United Kingdom set up the first registration system based on the "intent-to-use" principle. The Act also established an application publishing procedure and expanded the rights of the trademark holder to include

3000-492: The Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) in 2023. A comprehensive clearance search involves checking the USPTO database for federally registered and applied-for trademarks, state trademark databases, and the internet to see if someone else has already registered that trademark or a similar one. The search should also include looking at both words and designs. To search for similar designs in

3075-486: The UK Patent Office for the first time. Registration was considered to comprise prima facie evidence of ownership of a trademark and registration of marks began on 1 January 1876. The 1875 Act defined a registrable trade mark as a device or mark, or name of an individual or firm printed in some particular and distinctive manner; or a written signature or copy of a written signature of an individual or firm; or

Federal Trademark Dilution Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3150-400: The USPTO database, design search codes must be used. WIPO ’s Global Brand Database provides international access to trademarks and emblems. Trademark owners can either maintain protection at the national level or expand internationally through the Madrid System by building on their national registration. To pursue international protection, a national registration or pending application

3225-629: The United States Trademark Act, including defendant's profits, damages, attorneys' fees, and destruction of the infringing goods. The availability of monetary relief is a striking departure from state dilution laws, which have typically provided only for injunctive relief. The new law also provides that the ownership of a valid federal registration is a complete bar to the assertion of a dilution claim under state law, thereby effectively pre-empting state dilution claims against registered marks. In response to First Amendment concerns,

3300-584: The United States, trademark rights are established either (1) through first use of the mark in commerce, creating common law rights limited to the geographic areas of use, or (2) through federal registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with use in commerce required to maintain the registration. Federal registration with the USPTO provides additional benefits, such as: Trademark law grants legal protection to "distinctive" trademarks, which are marks that allow consumers to easily associate them with specific products or services. A strong trademark

3375-459: The alleged infringer is using the mark to identify the mark owner. One of the most visible proofs that trademarks provide a limited right in the U.S. comes from the comparative advertising that is seen throughout U.S. media. An example of the first type is that although Maytag owns the trademark "Whisper Quiet" for its dishwashers, makers of other products may describe their goods as being "whisper quiet" so long as these products do not fall under

3450-595: The association between "KODAK" and "film" is trademark dilution. Many states have long had statutory protection against trademark dilution. Until 1996, federal law protected only against trademark infringement. In that year, the FTDA took effect and provided federal protection against trademark dilution. Until 2006, the FTDA was distinguished from most state trademark dilution laws in several ways: (1) The FTDA protects only "famous" trademarks; most state statutes do not explicitly require trademarks to be "famous" to be protected against dilution. (2) The FTDA, as interpreted by

3525-438: The barring of trademark use even in cases where confusion remained unlikely. This Act served as a model for similar legislation elsewhere. The oldest registered trademark has various claimants, enumerated below: Trademark protection can be acquired through registration and/or, in certain countries, through use. Globally, the most common method for establishing trademark rights is registration. Most countries operate under

3600-540: The court claimed that the plaintiff Veuve Clicquot failed to prove that the linkage between champagne and clothing was likely to cause depreciation. In the Perrier case, the plaintiff, a French company, was the bottler and distributor of spring water. It sought an injunction to restrain another company base in Ontario from advertising and distributing bottled water in association with the name "Pierre eh!" claiming that

3675-419: The court rejected the trade mark infringement argument because no one was planning on using the trade mark to sell a product). Prior to specifically targeted laws being adopted, dilution protection was used in some U.S. jurisdictions to attack domain name infringement of trademarks (see Cybersquatting ). For example, in the 1998 case of Panavision International v. Toeppen , defendant Dennis Toeppen registered

3750-595: The different spellings, all three terms denote the same concept. In the United States, the Lanham Act defines a trademark as any word, phrase, symbol, design, or combination of these things used to identify goods or services. Trademarks help consumers recognize a brand in the marketplace and distinguish it from competitors. A service mark , also covered under the Lanham Act, is a type of trademark used to identify services rather than goods. The term trademark

3825-483: The domain name www.panavision.com, and posted aerial views of the city of Pana, Illinois , on the site. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that trademark dilution occurred when potential customers of Panavision could not find its web site at panavision.com, and instead were forced to search through other (less obvious) domain names. The fact that potential customers might be discouraged from locating Panavision's legitimate website, coupled with evidence that Toeppen

SECTION 50

#1732801012231

3900-409: The identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to the quality and other characteristics. Trademarks may also serve as an incentive for manufacturers, providers, or suppliers to consistently provide quality products or services to maintain their business reputation. Furthermore, if a trademark owner does not maintain quality control and adequate supervision about

3975-574: The late 19th century. In France, the first comprehensive trademark system in the world was passed into law in 1857 with the "Manufacture and Goods Mark Act". In Britain, the Merchandise Marks Act 1862 made it a criminal offense to imitate another's trade mark 'with intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud'. The passing of the Trade Marks Registration Act 1875 allowed formal registration of trademarks at

4050-532: The manufacture and provision of products or services supplied by a licensee, such "naked licensing" will eventually adversely affect the owner's rights in the trademark. For US law see, ex. Eva's Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises, Inc. 639 F.3d 788 (7th Cor. 2011). This proposition has, however, been watered down by the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Scandecor Development AB v. Scandecor Marketing AB et al. [2001] UKHL 21; wherein it has been held that

4125-415: The mark remains in continuous use in commerce. If the trademark owner stops using the mark for too long (typically three to five years, depending on the jurisdiction), the trademark rights may be lost. For example, in the United States, trademark rights are based on use in commerce. If a mark is not used for three consecutive years, it is presumed abandoned and becomes vulnerable to challenges. Similarly,

4200-476: The mere fact that a bare license (the equivalent of the United States concept of a naked license) has been granted did not automatically mean that a trademark was liable to mislead. By the same token, trademark holders must be cautious in the sale of their mark for similar reasons as apply to licensing. When assigning an interest in a trademark, if the associated product or service is not transferred with it, then this may be an "assignment-in-gross" and could lead to

4275-399: The necessary strength of a trademark may establish some basis for dilution protection from a consumer-confusion standpoint. Truly famous trademarks are likely to be seen in many different contexts due to branching out or simple sponsorship, to the extent that there may be very few markets, if any, that a consumer would be surprised to see that famous trademark involved in. A prime example may be

4350-432: The new law expressly exempts certain uses of a famous mark, in particular: Although approximately 25 states have already enacted laws that prohibit trademark dilution, this new federal law is intended to provide uniform and nationwide protection for famous marks. Thus, the new law renders academic the unsettled question of whether a state dilution claim can support injunctive relief against use in another state in which there

4425-454: The new law. In addition, the legislative history cites, as examples of the uses which would fall within the new law, the mark DUPONT for shoes, BUICK for aspirin and KODAK for pianos. Ordinarily, only injunctive relief is available under the new law. However, if the defendant willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark, the owner of that mark may also be entitled to other remedies available under

4500-666: The past involvement of Coca-Cola in clothing lines. One further use of the protection of trademark dilution is for controversial images, including the Cleveland Guardians ' former mascot and logo, Chief Wahoo , while the team was known as the Cleveland Indians at the time along with the Washington Commanders , formerly known as the Redskins. In those cases, a limited selection of merchandise

4575-532: The plaintiff needed to prove actual dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA"). The new law revises the FTDA, requiring the plaintiff to show only that the defendant's mark is likely to cause dilution. However, the revision also reduced the universe of marks falling under its protection, requiring that marks be nationally well known to qualify for protection from dilution. For example, when Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.,

SECTION 60

#1732801012231

4650-421: The possibility of perpetual rights, provided the trademark is continuously used and renewed. However, if a trademark is no longer in use, its registration may be subject to cancellation. Trademarks can also lose protection through genericide , a process where a trademark becomes so widely used to refer to a category of goods or services that it loses its distinctiveness and legal protection. A well-known example

4725-810: The public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (e.g., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard ). The strength required for a trademark to deserve dilution protection differs among jurisdictions, though it generally includes the requirement that it must be distinctive, famous, or even unique. Such trademarks would include instantly recognizable brand names, such as Coca-Cola , Kleenex , Kool-Aid , or Sony , and unique terms that were invented (such as Exxon ) rather than surnames (such as Ford or Zamboni ) or ordinary words in language. Some jurisdictions require additional registration of these trademarks as defensive marks in order to qualify for dilution protection. Another way of describing

4800-527: The registration of the trademark. A comprehensive clearance search can help avoid costly and time-consuming issues, such as refusal to register, opposition or cancellation proceedings, or a trademark infringement lawsuit. In the United States, the USPTO maintains a publicly accessible database of registered trademarks. This database can be searched using the Trademark Search system, which replaced

4875-425: The relevant national authority. Using the ® symbol for unregistered trademarks is misleading and can be treated as unfair business practice. It may also result in civil or criminal penalties. A brand is a marketing concept that reflects how consumers perceive a product or service. It has a much wider meaning and refers to the proprietary visual, emotional, rational, and cultural image that customers associate with

4950-420: The risk of confusing the champagne brand and a clothing store was low. However the court ruled that the only element needed was the ability of an average consumer to recognize the first distinctive character. Even if the trade mark is not that well known, the fact that a significant goodwill is attached to it might be enough for the court to find the use by another person unlawful. However, in that particular case,

5025-426: The same article. For example, the particular design of a bottle may qualify for copyright protection as a non-utilitarian [sculpture], or trademark protection based on its shape, or the ' trade dress ' appearance of the bottle as a whole may be protectable. Titles and character names from books or movies may also be protectable as trademarks while the works from which they are drawn may qualify for copyright protection as

5100-405: The same category of goods the trademark is protected under. An example of the second type is that Audi can run advertisements saying that a trade publication has rated an Audi model higher than a BMW model since they are only using "BMW" to identify the competitor. In a related sense, an auto mechanic can truthfully advertise that he services Volkswagens , and a former Playboy Playmate of

5175-420: The similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark harms the reputation of the famous mark. The new act defines the term "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of Courts have previously found that dilution can occur as a result of either "blurring" or "tarnishment". "Blurring" typically refers to

5250-486: The source of goods or services can serve as a trademark. In addition to words, slogans, designs, or combinations of these, trademarks can also include non-traditional marks like sounds, scents, or colors. Under the broad heading of trademarks, there are several specific types commonly encountered, such as trade dress, collective marks, and certification marks: To maintain distinctiveness , trademarks should function as adjectives, not as nouns or verbs, and be paired with

5325-488: The stone's origin and the workers responsible. Wine amphorae marked with seals were also found in the tomb of Pharaoh Tutankhamun , who ruled ancient Egypt more than 3,000 years ago. Over 2,000 years ago, Chinese manufacturers sold goods marked with identifying symbols in the Mediterranean region. Trademarks have also been discovered on pottery, porcelain, and swords produced by merchants in ancient Greece and

5400-494: The trademark owner. A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in

5475-400: The trademark owner. For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs . Dilution is a basis of trademark infringement that applies only to famous marks. With a non-famous mark, the owner of the mark must show that the allegedly infringing use creates

5550-480: The value of the goodwill attached to the French trade mark would likely be depreciated. The plaintiff succeeded on section 22 to stop the use of "Pierre Eh!" on bottled water. The plaintiff has to prove the elements of section 22, particularly that the use would likely depreciate the value of the goodwill of the claimant's mark. A precision has been made by Vaver, that the fact "that the use could well cause depreciation

5625-661: Was in the business of registering domain names for profit, led the court to find that Toeppen's conduct "diminished the capacity of the Panavision marks to identify and distinguish Panavision's goods and services on the Internet", and thus constituted dilution. Lately, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (H.R. 683), was signed into law, which overturned Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. , 537 U.S. 418 (2003). Moseley held

#230769