The New Wild West: Measuring and Proving Fame and Dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act

By Nguyen, Xuan-Thao N. | Albany Law Review, Fall 1999 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The New Wild West: Measuring and Proving Fame and Dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act

Nguyen, Xuan-Thao N., Albany Law Review


The passage of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (the Dilution Act or Act) has been widely celebrated, as evidenced by the number of related articles, speeches and symposia.(1) Commentators who applauded the adoption of the Dilution Act believed that a dilution claim would now be easier to prove by trademark owners against diluters because trademark owners would not have to establish the troublesome factual issue of consumer confusion.(2) The courts have embraced the Act, and it has already proven to be an effective weapon for trademark owners.(3) One court has even suggested trademark owners asserting claims of dilution bear a lighter burden than that required under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act because they do not have to demonstrate competition between the owners and the diluters or a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products or services.(4)

As three years have gone by since the Act first went into effect, it has become clear that proving dilution under the Act is not as easy as many had previously thought. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit, in Ringling Bros.--Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Division of Travel Development,(5) has recently begun an open season in the Wild West of dilution land by requiring proof of actual economic harm to the famous mark's selling power.(6)

The problems encountered by trademark owners attempting to pursue a dilution claim are inherent in the Act itself. The Act provides no concrete guidance on how fame and dilution should be measured or proven.(7) This limitation has led judicial interpretation of the Act to a new Wild West where courts confront the task of measuring fame and dilution without the benefit of any criteria for making such measurements.(8) In analyzing the Act, no court has provided a cut-off percentage for finding fame and/or dilution under either the likelihood of dilution or actual dilution standard. As a result, a wasteland of case law has developed with cases that either superficially(9) or erroneously(10) analyze dilution claims or avoid the dilution issue altogether by finding trademark infringement under the traditional theory of likelihood of confusion.(11) Consequently, trademark owners who wish to assert dilution claims are faced with the harsh reality that, despite all the fanfare about the passage of the Act, getting protection under the Act is difficult, given the current inconsistent and incoherent jurisprudence addressing the measurement and proof of fame and dilution.(12)

This Article will attempt to conquer that new Wild West. Section I provides an overview of the Act, explains two traditional theories of dilution--tarnishment and blurring--and discusses the new diminishment theory of dilution recognized by courts in cases involving domain names on the Internet.(13) Section II explores the limitations of the Act.(14) Section III examines four authoritative cases that have addressed quantitative measurements of fame and/or dilution, and discusses the shortcomings in each case with regard to quantitative measurements.(15) Section IV suggests a new approach to measuring and proving fame and dilution.(16) This Article concludes with the assertion that this proposed approach would arm trademark owners with certainty in navigating the new Wild West of dilution claims analysis under the Dilution Act.(17)


Fifty years after the enactment of the first state anti-dilution statute, the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act went into effect.(18) The Act amended the existing federal Trademark Act of 1946, commonly known as the Lanham Act.(19) The new Act provided the owner of a famous trademark injunctive relief against unauthorized use of a mark that dilutes the distinctive quality of the famous mark.(20) The Act, signed into law by President Clinton on January 16, 1996, specifically amended section 43 of the Lanham Act, by adding the following subsection:

   The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of
   equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction
   against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade
   name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes
   dilution of the distinctive quality of the [famous] mark. 

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The New Wild West: Measuring and Proving Fame and Dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?