Remedies for trademarks that have been diluted, either by means of blurring or tarnishment, typically only offer injunctions against the plaintiff. The plaintiff will have to cease using the trademark responsible for diluting another company. 

The judge may require a written statement be prepared and submitted by a future date, which should detail how the plaintiff plans to remove any illegal trademarks from their products or stores. It is rare that anything other than an injunction is placed on the defendant. 

The remedies for trademark infringement are a bit more harsh than dilution. However, it is important to note that if intentional dilution takes place, similar remedies to trademark infringement may be required to pay by the plaintiff.

If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant willfully attempted to trade based on the reputation of the plaintiff, or willfully looked to bring down the reputation of the plaintiff by copying their trademark, trademark protection laws allow stricter penalties against plaintiffs. 

If these things can be proven collaboratively, monetary damages may be awarded to cover court costs, forfeit profits gained as a result of dilution, and help pay for any losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the dilution. Trademark protection laws typically do not allow any monetary damages to be awarded for state registered trademarks, only those that are federally registered.

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.

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.