The inclusion of trademark dilution into federal legislation proved to be important in the sense that such a consideration was left solely to state laws prior to 1995. That is not to say that state laws implementing trademark dilution were not effective, yet the need for a cohesive application for dilution at the federal or interstate level seemed like a necessary and logical step. It is important to note that trademark dilution cases were being tried in courts as far as the early 1960’s, as in the case of Polaroid Corp. v. Polaraid, Inc.
The inclusion into federal law took quite some time, which at least proves to show that the state legislation managed to provide for justifiable and agreeable regulations regarding trademark dilution. However, a federal law for the dilution of trademarks was necessary in order to properly enforce the lawful use of trademarks in those states that did not impose or recognize trademark dilution statutes.
Furthermore, the Dilution Act also provided for exemptions of trademark dilution in cases of fair use, such as in a marketing or advertisement context, parody, satire, non-commercial uses, and for use of trademarks in news reporting and commentary. It also amended the state statutes regarding trademark dilution and its application in terms of actual dilution versus possibility or likelihood of the dilution of trademarks.
Federal trademark dilution statutes also provided for defendant’s profits, attorney’s fees and damages, where as state legislation only allowed for injunctive relief, and no monetary compensations. Even though the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 implemented trademark dilution regulations at a federal level effectively, the Dilution Act is currently rendered outdated and outmoded, with the inclusion of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006