The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 allowed for certain amendments to be made to the Trademark Act of 1946
The Revision Act provides for specific amendments to be made to sections two, thirteen, fourteen, twenty-four, and forty-five. The amendments in section two deal with the actual removal of wording and the insertion that a mark may be refused registration on the grounds that it is likely to cause dilution by blurring or by means of tarnishment. It also states that a registration for a mark may also be canceled under the same contingencies.
Section Thirteen is the Opposition to Registration, the amendments made there are to include the refusal of registration as a result of the possibility for dilution by blurring or tarnishment. Section Fourteen is the Cancellation of Registration, and the Revision Act revises the clause by including dilution as means for cancellation.
Section Twenty-Four is found under the Supplemental Register sub-chapter, which is included in the Trademark Act of 1946 to allow for certain marks to be registered that do not fully meet the requirements under the Principal Register so they can be registered at a later date when such mark has proven to be widely recognized by the public as concurrent to its product, and also, for eligibility to be registered at the international level; other countries may not have as stringent requirements as does the United States.
The amendments made under the Revision Act to this section also allow for marks registered under this provision to be considered liable to dilution of famous marks, regardless of the fact that they are not registered under the Principal Register. Section Forty-Five is the Definitions section of the Trademark Act, and is amended by the removal of the definition of dilution to this section.
The amendments to the Lanham Act of 1946 were necessary in order to prevent any confusion or contradictory interpretations of the original legislation and the new trademark act. With dilution being much more prevalent an issue of dispute, and also allowing for confusing interpretation of the dilution provisions in laws as exhibited in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., the Revision Act of 2006 was necessary from preventing further discrepancies in the court of law.