| Abstract: | Legal context. Dilution by blurring has often been accused ofbeing a vague concept which is difficult to understand and whichhas no sensible limits. Mindful of the need for certainty inthis area, the US Senate and House of Representatives have passedthe Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006. This Bill (which isdiscussed more generally in Part I) includes a definition ofblurring and a six-point test for blurring. Meanwhile, the EuropeanUnion has been steadily building up jurisprudence in this area. Key points. This part of the article focuses on dilution byblurring, considering how blurring is defined, how it is testedfor and whether US and EU blurring protection is in compliancewith the jurisdictions’ international obligations in thisarea (discussed in Part I). In particular, it considers thenew definition of, and test for, blurring under the US TrademarkDilution Revision Act 2006, and compares the position underthat Bill to the situation in the EU. Practical significance. Assuming that it enters into law, theRevision Act 2006 has serious implications for the proprietorsof famous marks doing business in the US. This article willinform the owners of such marks what protection they will benefitfrom and how this will differ from the protection they willget in the EU. |
