Ask AI
Public Law109th CongressCommerce
H.R. 683Became Law

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006

This bill became law

Filed
Comm.
Floor
Both
Law

What it doesSummary public law (Oct 6, 2006)

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on February 27, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and (4) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) any fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including for advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services, or identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; (2) all forms of news reporting and news commentary; and (3) any noncommercial use of a mark.

Requires the person who asserts trade dress protection for trade dress not registered on the principal register in a civil action for trade dress dilution to prove that: (1) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and (2) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) first used the mark or trade name in commerce after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or (3) willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under state common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

What just happenedOct 6, 2006

Became Public Law No: 109-312.

Who’s behind it

Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21](R-TX)Sponsor
Read on Congress.gov
2committees40actions
  1. Oct 6, 2006PresidentE40000

    Became Public Law No: 109-312.

  2. Oct 6, 2006BecameLaw36000

    Became Public Law No: 109-312.

  3. Oct 6, 2006PresidentE30000

    Signed by President.

  4. Oct 6, 2006BecameLaw36000

    Signed by President.

  5. Sep 29, 2006FloorE20000

    Presented to President.

  6. Sep 29, 2006President28000

    Presented to President.

  7. Sep 25, 2006ResolvingDifferencesH41931

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  8. Sep 25, 2006ResolvingDifferencesH41610

    On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H6963-6965; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6963-6964)

  9. Sep 25, 2006NotUsed19500

    Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H6963-6965; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6963-6964)

  10. Sep 25, 2006FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 683.

  11. Sep 25, 2006ResolvingDifferencesH40140

    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.

  12. Mar 8, 2006Floor

    Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  13. Mar 8, 2006Floor

    Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1921-1923; text as passed Senate: CR S1921-1923)

  14. Mar 8, 2006Floor17000

    Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S1921-1923; text as passed Senate: CR S1921-1923)

  15. Feb 27, 2006Calendars

    Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 366.

  16. Feb 27, 2006Committee

    Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.

    Judiciary Committee
  17. Feb 27, 2006Committee14000

    Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.

    Judiciary Committee
  18. Feb 16, 2006Committee

    Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

    Judiciary Committee
  19. Nov 3, 2005Committee

    Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

    Judiciary Committee
  20. Apr 20, 2005IntroReferral

    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    Judiciary Committee
  21. Apr 19, 2005FloorH38310

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  22. Apr 19, 2005FloorH37300

    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 8 (Roll no. 109). (text: CR H2121-2122)

  23. Apr 19, 2005Floor8000

    Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 8 (Roll no. 109).(text: CR H2121-2122)

  24. Apr 19, 2005FloorH30000

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2125-2126)

  25. Apr 19, 2005FloorH37220

    At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.

  26. Apr 19, 2005FloorH8D000

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 683.

  27. Apr 19, 2005FloorH30000

    Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2121-2123)

  28. Apr 19, 2005FloorH30300

    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

  29. Mar 17, 2005CalendarsH12410

    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 9.

  30. Mar 17, 2005CommitteeH12200

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-23.

    Judiciary Committee
  31. Mar 17, 2005Committee5000

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-23.

    Judiciary Committee
  32. Mar 9, 2005CommitteeH19000

    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

    Judiciary Committee
  33. Mar 9, 2005CommitteeH15000-B

    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

    Judiciary Committee
  34. Mar 3, 2005CommitteeH23000

    Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

    Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Subcommittee
  35. Mar 3, 2005CommitteeH22000

    Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

    Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Subcommittee
  36. Feb 17, 2005CommitteeH21000

    Subcommittee Hearings Held.

    Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Subcommittee
  37. Feb 15, 2005CommitteeH11000

    Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

    Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet Subcommittee
  38. Feb 9, 2005IntroReferralH11100

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    Judiciary Committee
  39. Feb 9, 2005IntroReferralIntro-H

    Introduced in House

  40. Feb 9, 2005IntroReferral1000

    Introduced in House

Public LawOct 6, 200649

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on February 27, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and (4) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) any fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including for advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services, or identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; (2) all forms of news reporting and news commentary; and (3) any noncommercial use of a mark.

Requires the person who asserts trade dress protection for trade dress not registered on the principal register in a civil action for trade dress dilution to prove that: (1) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and (2) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) first used the mark or trade name in commerce after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or (3) willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under state common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

Passed Senate amendedMar 8, 200635

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on February 27, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and (4) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) any fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including for advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services, or identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; (2) all forms of news reporting and news commentary; and (3) any noncommercial use of a mark.

Requires the person who asserts trade dress protection for trade dress not registered on the principal register in a civil action for trade dress dilution to prove that: (1) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and (2) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) first used the mark or trade name in commerce after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or (3) willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under state common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

Reported to Senate with amendment(s)Feb 27, 200601

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark; and (4) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) any fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's own goods or services, including for advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services, or identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; (2) all forms of news reporting and news commentary; and (3) any noncommercial use of a mark.

Requires the person who asserts trade dress protection for trade dress not registered on the principal register in a civil action for trade dress dilution to prove that: (1) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is famous; and (2) if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole, is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) first used the mark or trade name in commerce after the date of enactment of this Act; (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark; or (3) willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under state common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

Passed House amendedApr 19, 200536

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 17, 2005. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; and (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark; (2) fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's good or services, including for identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; and (3) all forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) did not use the mark or name that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment in commerce prior to the date of this Act; and (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark or harm its reputation by reason of dilution by blurring or tarnishment.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under State common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

Reported to House with amendment(s)Mar 17, 200517

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution.

Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public as a designation of the source of the goods or services of the mark's owner. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark is famous, including: (1) the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark; (2) the amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark; and (3) the extent of actual recognition of the mark.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Allows the court to consider all relevant factors when determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, including: (1) the degree of similarity; (2) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark; (3) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark; (4) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (5) whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (6) any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.

Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or tarnishment, including: (1) fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark; (2) fair use of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person's good or services, including for identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the owner's goods or services; and (3) all forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Allows the owner of a famous mark to seek additional remedies in an action under this Act if the person against whom the injunction is sought: (1) did not use the mark or name that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment in commerce prior to the date of this Act; and (2) willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the famous mark or harm its reputation by reason of dilution by blurring or tarnishment.

Declares that ownership of a valid registration is a complete bar to an action under State common law or statute that seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or tarnishment or that asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.

Introduced in HouseFeb 9, 200500

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark dilution. Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce, after it has become famous, as a designation of source of the person's goods or services that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of confusion, competition, or economic injury.

Defines a mark as famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark's owner.

Defines "dilution by blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a designation of source and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an association arising from the similarity between a designation of source and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment, including: (1) fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark; (2) noncommercial use of a designation of source; and (3) all forms of news reporting and news commentary.