Abstract
Judicial interpretation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA),' which created a federal cause of action to afford famous marks protection against later, unauthorized uses that blur, tarnish, or harm these marks' distinctiveness,' has been unnecessarily inconsistent. Courts have reached conflicting conclusions regarding a claimant's prima facie requirements under the FTDA ever since the statute's enactment, despite the FTDA's intended effect of providing predictability and uniformity to trademark dilution law.3 Not only has their analysis of what constitutes a famous trademark deserving of federal protection been incongruent,4 the judiciary has also split over what must be shown to prove actionable dilution. Specifically, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have maintained that a claimant must show actual economic injury5 to its famous mark in order to prevail under
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
