Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBelinda Kelley Modified over 9 years ago
1
Law 227: Trademarks & Unfair Competition Trademark Dilution July 2, 2009 Jefferson Scher
2
TM & Unfair Comp — Day 11 Agenda Trademark Dilution Protection for trademark rights even in the absence of probable confusion “Dauntingly elusive” theory takes numerous forms Blurring, tarnishment — other? Overlapping and possibly conflicting Federal and State laws
3
Dilution True Property Rights in Trademarks Infringement = likelihood of confusion Dilution = likelihood of association that causes harm Blurring Tarnishment Other?
4
Dilution How can a mark be “diluted”? Blurring Definition: the association of a mark with more than one source, even if: Goods/services are completely unrelated Junior user has an equally good or better reputation Example: POLARAID refrigeration and heating systems, BACARDI jewelry
5
Dilution How can a mark be “diluted”? Tarnishment (or disparagement) Definition: the association of a mark with something unwholesome, unsavory or degrading, or “low class” Blurring at its worst Example: CANDYLAND.com adult web site, DOGIVA pet food, STEIN-WAY clip- on beer can handle
6
Dilution How can a mark be “diluted”? Other dilution scenarios? Unfair nominative use — like tarnishment without the association with the junior user .com domain names (may be obsolete) There are few bounds on the creativity of lawyers and judges when a famous mark is being exploited “unfairly”...
7
Dilution Dilution Scenarios — Cases Federal “association” cases NIKEPAL GULPY CHEWY VUITON GREATEST SNOW ON EARTH Is it clear now??
8
Dilution Dilution Scenarios — Cases State Dilution Cases GREATEST USED CAR SHOW ON EARTH LEXUS Federal Trade Dress Dilution Hershey package design Pepperidge Farms goldfish crackers Vola “Falling water” faucet
9
Dilution Dilution Scenarios — Cases Referential or nominative use Ty Inc. v. Perryman Deere & Co. v. MTD Products (NY) Hormel Foods v. Jim Henson Prod. (NY) Caterpillar v. Walt Disney (optional/online) WHAM-O v. Paramount (optional/online)
10
Dilution Dilution in the Trademark Office Dilution can be a basis for opposition Lanham Act §2, after (f): A mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 43(c) may be refused registration only pursuant to a proceeding brought under section 13. Not applicable to ex parte examination
11
Dilution True Property Rights in Trademarks Dilution reconsidered Does dilution theory go too far? Rights exceeding actual goodwill? Proper balance after the TDRA? Social science and pseudoscience: economic and behavioral analysis Uniqueness or lack thereof (optional Stadler)
12
TM & Unfair Comp — Up Next Topics and Reading for Day 12 We resume Tuesday, July 14th Rights of Publicity Chapter 9, pp. 675-723 Parody Chapter 12, pp. 838-873, 885-889 Supplement pp. 92-95
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.