Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006

[Dave_Z]

Newsflash for those who aren't aware of this: President Bush signed into law
the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. You can read the Act via the link
below:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h683enr.txt.pdf

I invite everyone, especially the "resident" attorneys, to give your unsolicited
advice, sarcastic feedback, even violent reactions. :D

While I'm not a mod, I'd like to request everyone to keep discussion here "civil"
and on-topic since we're supposed to be civilized people...right?

I realize the last part's a tall order. But it's still achievable.

 

[labrocca]

That references too many others laws to take into context. Anyone care to explain this better? I read the whole Act 3-4 times but I am not clear on the actual changes from the regular laws that exist.

 

[Dave_Z]

Chew on these:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/tmdilution

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/10/09/trademark-dilution-revision-act-becomes-law/

http://www.kayescholer.com/web.nsf/openDocument?OpenAgent&ID=EFC4A1A04B73300E852571F8005841D2

http://www.iplegallounge.com/blog/2006/09/trademark_dilut.html

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/10/trademark_dilut_3.htm

Note I asked a "stupid" question on the last link I posted here.

I'd especially like to hear Dr. Berryhill's thoughts on the matter. But he posted
elsewhere he's taking off someplace in a few days. (enjoy your trip!)

Enjoy the information overload. :D

 

[Ronald Regging]

Basically the main thing people are concerned about is that giving companies the power to challenge LIKELY dilution versus actual dilution will lead to an increase in lawsuits and will take a toll on small businesses. I agree with this completely, but we live in a world where money buys legal rights, so it's really nothing new. This opens a new door for lawsuits between similiar mark owners in different business categories... The question will be what standards they use in determining a level of fame or popularity that would invoke exclusive rights to a name... Generally speaking, if a company is famous and popular enough, they should already have enough money to file TMs across the board and therefore theres no need for this law. But it does stipulate that in order for it to be in violation a mark has to be established AFTER the original mark gains the required level of fame. So it's like saying I can't got out and start a company named Google Potholders... or something...

The other issue seems to be that the Fair Use exceptions had previously been considered widespread throughout the entire Lanham Act, and this new law limits it to cases of dilution and tarnishment. I'm not sure what other infringements there are that may require a defense of Fair Use, but if there are any, it will no longer apply.

This isn't surprising to me at all. This country is all about big government and big corporations... The little people don't matter. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this pans out. Personally, I don't neccesarily think the act is bad in theory, I mean, big corporations do have the most to lose by dilution and therefore should be given certain rights to protect their marks, but how it will work in practice, I don't know... I'm sure there will be many abuses made.

 

[fonzie_007]

I'd be interested in seeing some case law on this new law.

 

[labrocca]

Here is something interesting now.

“fair use of a famous mark by another person, other than as a designation of source for the person’s goods or services, including for purposes of identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner”

It seems to say that a site like GoogleForums.com may be considered fair use now. Obviously it would be a place to criticize and comment on google. Hmm...this could be good.

 

[Ronald Regging]

Here is something interesting now.



It seems to say that a site like GoogleForums.com may be considered fair use now. Obviously it would be a place to criticize and comment on google. Hmm...this could be good.

It also states that you can use a companies mark in advertising and promotion when in the form of comparative shopping... I think we all know what this is refering to, but I wonder if anyone will try to use this as a defense for PPC parking on a TM name... Because, that's essentially what PPC does...