Trade mark dilution bill moves forward in US

The bill was introduced in the wake of a ruling by the Supreme Court which said that in order to succeed in a dilution action, a trade mark owner had to show evidence that a competitor caused actual harm by using a "sound-alike" or "knockoff name."

• likely rather than actual dilution is necessary – creating a lower burden of proof for trade mark owners;
• claimants do not need to show economic injury, competition or "actual or likely confusion";
• the senior mark must be shown to be famous among the US public in general, rather than in a particular location, or market sector;
• both blurring (where the distinctiveness of the famous mark is reduced) and 'tarnishment' (where the reputation of the famous mark is harmed) are covered by the Act; and
• free speech rights – for news reporting or parodies, for example – are specifically protected.