| Abstract: | Legal context: When Congress enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in1996, it intended to create a uniform federal cause of actionfor trade mark dilution. Unfortunately, the statutory languageselected by Congress created certain ambiguities, includinghow famous a trade mark had to be to merit dilution protectionunder the statute. Confusion developed as to whether a markmerely needed renown in a limited geographic area or industry—aconcept that became known as ‘niche fame’—orwhether it needed national renown to qualify as a ‘famousmark’. Key points: In 2006, Congress enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision Actand therein provided a concrete definition for a famous markthat ostensibly removed the ability to qualify for dilutionrelief where the mark was famous only within a particular niche.It was uncertain how courts that had previously favoured theniche fame theory would apply Congress's new definition. However,a district court in the Ninth Circuit, one of the strongestproponents of niche fame, recently held that niche fame is nolonger a viable theory under the Lanham Act or California statelaw as a result of the 2006 amendment. Practical significance: This decision portends that courts will fall in line with Congress'samendment and will deny dilution relief under federal law toparties whose marks are famous only in a particular geographicarea or industry. Additionally, the decision provides some guidanceand predictability as to how states may interpret the viabilityof niche fame under their respective dilution statutes in lightof Congress's 2006 amendment. |
