The Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 protected all famous trademarks from being diluted even if there was not a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion is vital to any infringement case but it was determined that it was not necessary for dilution to occur. 

Since arguments over what trademark are famous and were protected by dilution laws were bound to happen, the act created a list of criteria for determining which trademarks should be considered famous. The criteria for determining if a trademark is famous can be found hereDilution according to the Act

In the act defines 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 competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties or likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.” 

What this means is if a well known trademark is in someway copied or made constructed similarly, the company responsible for diluting the original trademark is in someway bringing down the value and taking away the uniqueness of the original trademark. 

The diluting company is trying to use the famous mark to benefit themselves regardless of whether or not they are doing any damage to the reputation and public perception of the well established trademark and the company it represents.

When the act was created, many were concerned their first amendment rights would be violated. To put concerned minds at ease, the creators of the act believed they settled any possible disputes.

         Fair use could still apply to trademarks and not cause dilution. Comparative commercial advertising in the proper context would be legal.

         Non-commercial uses such as parody and satire would remain legal.

         All forms of news reporting and news commentary would be legal.

Occurs when confusion is caused among consumers because the similarities between two trademarks is too great and the public view of the companies is altered. If consumers begin to not see the trademarks and their companies as unique, blurring as occurred.

Tarnishment occur when a similarly looking trademark and the company offer unsavory goods or services. The company could also offer inferior products. This effects the plaintiff because some people in the public are relating the inferior products to the plaintiff’s company due to the similarities in their trademarks.

Civil trials regarding trademark dilution do not require the plaintiff to show trademark dilution took place beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge believes either a blurring or tarnishment of trademarks took place, the judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant will likely have an injunction placed against the use of their trademark.

The court system uses a set of criteria to determine if a trademark is famous enough to receive dilution protection.

1. The length of time the trademarked thing has been existing.

2. The duration of time that advertising for the trademarked thing has been in circulation.

3. The geographic area the trademark is used.

4. How distinct the trademarked thing is.

5. How recognizable the public views the trademarked thing as.

6. The way in which the trademarked thing is sold and distributed.

7. The amount that third parties use the trademarked thing.

8. Whether the mark was federally registered.

After examining a case, a judge will use the above criteria to decide if a trademark is famous enough to enjoy the protection offered by the Dilution Act of 1995Lanham Act.