July-December 2016
ISSN 2050-005X (Online); 978-1535124478 (ISBN-13); 1535124474 (ISBN-10)
Abstract: US Courts have either preferred to address dilution-by- blurring as trademark infringement, or have involuntarily misunderstood the concept as infringement in the past. Even upon recognition of ‘blurring’ as a separate claim, decisions of the courts with regards to the determination of dilution-by-blurring have differed from one another. Alongside the definition of blurring, this paper critically evaluates how blurring has become a conceptually difficult area of trademark law. Although the latest revision law in the US is believed to have immensely contributed to the better understanding of blurring, this paper identifies certain areas, addressing which would better conceptualize dilution-by- blurring.
Keywords: Trademarks, Trademark dilution, Dilution-by-blurring, Intellectual property law.
Andrew Terry and Chloe Chittock, ‘Shapes And Slogans As Trade Marks: Developments In Case Law’ (2010) 18 Journal of Brand Management 174, 175.
Case Law’ (2010) 18 Journal of Brand Management 174, 175. 3 Samuel Londesborough, ‘Should Colours Be Protected By Trade Mark Law? What Problems May Arise In Protecting Them?’ (Undergraduate, University of Kent) 18.
4 Lee Burgunder, ‘Trademark Protection of Smells: Sense Or Nonsense’ (1991) 29 Am Business Law Journal 459, 462.
5 Terry and Chittock, 176.
6 Matthew Lance Cole, The Complete Guide To Patents, Copyrights, And Trademarks (Atlantic Pub Group 2008), 146.
7 Emine Saner, ‘You Can’t Trademark Everything’ (The Guardian, 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/law/shortcuts/2013/jun/04/you-cant-trademark-everythingchanel> accessed 16 April 2015.
8 Wolfgang Sakulin, Trademark Protection And Freedom Of Expression (Kluwer Law International 2011), 46.
9 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), About Trademarks (2015) <http://www.wipo.int/trademarks/en/about_trademarks.html#function> accessed 16 April 2015.
10 Kathleen McCabe, ‘Dilution-By-Blurring: A Theory Caught In The Shadow Of Trademark Infringement’ (1999) 68 Fordham Law Review 1827, 1828.
11 Zinn v Seruga [2009] Civ No 05-3572 (District Court New York).
12 Ibid.
13 J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks And Unfair Competition (Lawyers Co-operative Pub Co 1984).
14 Krista Holt and Scot Duvall, ‘Chasing Moseley’s Ghost: Dilution Surveys Under The Trademark Dilution Revision Act’ (2008) 98 The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association 1311, 1329-1330.
15 McCabe, 1829.
16 Kenneth Port, ‘Trademark Dilution In Japan’ (2006) 4 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 228.
17 Perfumebaycom Inc v eBay, Inc [2007] 506 F3d (9th Circuit).
18 Oswald, 258-260.
19 Frank I. Schechter, ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’ (1927) 40 Harvard Law Review, 813, 825.
20 Matthew D. Bunker and Kim Bissell, ‘Lost In The Semiotic Maze: Empirical Approaches To Proof Of Blurring In Trademark Dilution Law’ (2013) 18 Communication Law and Policy 375, 376.
21 Alexandra Olson, ‘Dilution By Tarnishment: An Unworkable Cause Of Action In Cases Of Artistic Expression’ (2012) 53 Boston College Law Review 693, 696-697 <http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3218&context=bclr> accessed 26 March 2015.
22 Oswald, 261.
23 Howard Handelman, Guide To Trademark Trial And Appeal Board Practice (Aspen Publishers Online 2007), 8-223.
24 Sally Gee, Inc v Myra Hogan, Inc [1983] 699 F2d (2nd Circuit).
25 Barton Beebe, ‘A Defense Of The New Federal Trademark Antidilution Law’ (2006) 16 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 1142, 1149. <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1363&context=iplj> accessed 26 March 2015.
26 Ibid.
27 Alexandra Olson, ‘Dilution By Tarnishment: An Unworkable Cause Of Action In Cases Of Artistic Expression’ (2012) 53 Boston College Law Review 693, 697.
28 Paul Siegel, Communication Law In America (4th edn, Rowman & Littlefield 2014), 257.
29 Megan Gray, ‘Defending Against A Dilution Claim: A Practitioner’s Guide’ (1996) 205 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 206, 220.
30 Jonathan Mermin, ‘Interpreting The Federal Trademark Dilution Act Of 1995: The Logic Of The Actual Dilution Requirement’ (2001) 42 Boston College Law Review 207.
31 The Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 1995 (“FTDA”).
32 Jon Marans, ‘Westchester Media Co. L.P., et al. v PRL USA Holdings, Inc.: The Fight Over The Name, POLO’ (2002) 8 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 351, 361.
33 Panavision Int’l, LP v Toeppen [1998] 141 F3d (9th Circuit).
34 FTDA.
35 Westchester Media Co, LP v PRL USA Holdings, Inc [2000] 214 F3d (5th Circuit).
36 Sid Leach, ‘The Federal Trademark Dilution Act Of 1995 Has Not Brought Uniformity And Consistency To The Protection Of Famous Marks’ (Snell & Wilmer, 2002) <http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/publications/2002/11/09/Trademark-Dilution-by-SidLeach.pdf> accessed 28 March 2015.
37 Christopher Micheletti and Dan Dorfman, ‘Proving Dilution By Blurring: An Analysis Of Dilution By Blurring Factors Under The Federal Trademark Dilution Act’ (2002) 92 Official Journal of the International Trademark Association 1345, 1377.
38 Matthew Voss, ‘Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. V. Utah Division Of Travel Development & Nabisco, Inc. V. PF Brands, Inc.’ (2000) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 265, 273.
39 Leach, 1.
40 Micheletti and Dorfman, 1377.
41 Ibid.
42 Simon Ilanah, ‘The Actual Dilution Requirement In The United States, United Kingdom And European Union: A Comparative Analysis’ (2006) 12 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 271, 276.
43 Mead Data Central v Toyota Motor Sales [1988] 702 F Supp (District Court Southern District of New York) 1031.
44 Micheletti and Dorfman, 1349.
45 Vapnyar Vadim, ‘Moseley V. Secret Catalogue, Inc.: Redefining The Scope Of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act’ (2012) 77 St. John’s Law Review 675, 687.
46 Times Mirror Magazines, Inc v Las Vegas Sports News, LLC [2000] 212 F3d (3rd Circuit).
47 Brian Gearing, ‘Moseley V. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.’ (2004) 19 Berkeley Technology Law Journal <http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=btlj> accessed 29 March 2015.
48 Michael A Epstein and Michael A Epstein, Epstein On Intellectual Property (Aspen Publishers 2006), 7-37.
49 Hasbro, Inc v Clue Computing, Inc [1999] 66 F Supp 2d (District Court Massachusetts).
50 Micheletti and Dorfman, 1350.
51 Ibid.
52 Jeffrey Katz and David Weems, ‘Almost Famous? Comments On The Trademark Dilution Revision Act’ [2007] The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.
53 Ibid.
54 The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TRDA).
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School, ‘Trademark Infringement’ <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement> accessed 16 April 2015.
58 David Radack, ‘Likelihood Of Confusion—The Basis For Trademark Infringement’ (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 2002) <http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-0212.html> accessed 16 April 2015.
59 Mark Lemley and Stacey Dogan, ‘Grounding Trademark Law Through Trademark Use’ [2007] Stanford Public Law Working Paper 1670, 1674.
60 Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School.
61 R.S Nelson, ‘Unraveling The Trademark Rope: Tarnishment And Its Proper Place In The Laws Of Unfair Competition’ (2002) 42 IDEA 133, 135-136.
62 McCabe, 1828.
63 Paul Edward Kim, ‘Preventing Dilution Of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act: Why The FTDA Requires Actual Economic Harm’ (2001) 150 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 319, 337.
64 McCabe, 1829.
65 Bruce E. Altschuler and Celia A. Sgroi, Understanding Law In A Changing Society (Prentice Hall 1996), 203.
66 Stacey Dogan and Mark Lemley, ‘The Trademark Use Requirement In Dilution Cases’ (2007) 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 541, 548.
67 Cue Publishing Company v Colgate-Palmolive Co [1964] 233 F. Supp. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).
68 Geisel v Poynter Products Inc [1968] 283 F. Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
69 Ibid.
70 Mark Partridge, ‘Understanding Trademark Law’s Key Principle’ (Pattishall McAuliffe) <http://www.pattishall.com/pdf/LikelihoodofConfusion.pdf> accessed 19 April 2015.
71 Eugene Quinn, ‘Trademark Infringement—The Likelihood Of Confusion’ (Sans technology Institute, 2008) <http://www.sans.edu/research/leadership-laboratory/article/quinn-ipconfusion> accessed 19 April 2015.
72 112th Congress, House Report, ‘THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT (`FTDA’)’ (2012) <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112MHseG&r_n=hr647.112&dbname=cp112&&sel=TOC_2861&> accessed 19 April 2015.
73 Jennifer Beerline, ‘Anti-Dilution Law, New And Improved: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006’ (2008) 23 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 511, 531.
74 TRDA.
75 Ibid.
76 Paul Heald and Robert Brauneis, ‘Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, And The Decline In Sharing Of Famous Brand Names: An Introduction And Empirical Study’ [2010] University of Georgia Law, Research Paper Series <http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=fac_wp> accessed 19 April 2015.
77 McCarthy.
78 Gregory J Battersby and Charles W Grimes, Licensing Royalty Rates (Aspen Publishers 2005), 236.
LLM (International Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation), University of Warwick; Lecturer of Law at the University of Asia Pacific in Bangladesh.
1 Lynda Oswald, '“Tarnishment” and “Blurring” under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995' (1999) 36 American Business Law Journal, 255, 255.
(2016). Why Blurring is a Conceptually Difficult Area of Trademark Law. Legal issues Journal, 4 (2), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/04-02-13072016/
