Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 8, Issue 2, November 2020
Articles

Dynamics of Trademark Dilution: Issues and Challenges in India and USA

PDF
  • Anuttama Ghose
    ,
  • S. M. Aamir Ali
Anuttama Ghose
Assistant Professor of Law at Indian Institute of Legal Studies, Siliguri, Darjeeling (West Bengal)
S. M. Aamir Ali
Assistant Professor of Law at Indian Institute of Legal Studies, Siliguri, Darjeeling (West Bengal)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46985/kslr.v8i2.2150

Published 2021-07-27

How to Cite

Ghose , A. ., & Aamir Ali , S. M. . (2021). Dynamics of Trademark Dilution: Issues and Challenges in India and USA. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 8(2), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.46985/kslr.v8i2.2150
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Trademarks of an establishment cannot solely be associated with identification of origin or source. It performs an imperative task of building brand name and value. The dilution theory rejects the opinion that the role of a trademark is solely based on the recognition of the root or source of its origin and that it is not only a figurative representation but carries a creative aspect as well. For the most recent decade, the greatest inquiry in trademark law has been the manner by which to demonstrate weakening or dilution. Dilution has turned out to be a dauntingly slippery idea. The principal issue with dilution law is that it gives a cure without a supportable hypothesis of the harm or damage. Even though lately the concept has been recognized in International as well as domestic jurisdiction putting an immense responsibility on domestic jurisdiction to protect trademarks against dilution, very little has been discussed or clarified regarding the theory of dilution. Ambiguity of such nature facilitated this research trying to spot some light on the theory of dilution comparing it from divergent angles in different jurisdictions. The paper also highlights the interpretation mechanism of the courts of the dilution provision and explains the concept further with reference to important cases under the U.S. laws and European judgments in the context of the Dilution laws and draws a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the legal framework present in India with that of the USA.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Frank I. Schechter, ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’, Harvard Law Review, p.813 volume 40:6, 1927, p. 833.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Sarah Lux, ‘Evaluating Trade Mark Dilution from the Perspective of the Consumer’, University of New South Wales Law Journal p.1, volume 4:17, 2011, p. 2.
  5. T.G. Agitha, ‘Trademark Dilution - The Indian Approach’, Journal of Indian Law Institute, p. 339 volume 50:1, 2008, p. 340.
  6. Reichman, Courtland, ‘State and Federal Trademark Dilution’, Franchise Law Journal volume 17:4, 1998, p.137.
  7. David S. Welkowitz, ‘Trademark Dilution: Federal, State and International Law’, Bloomberg BNA, Second edition ISBN-13: 978-1617461033, December 28, 2012.
  8. Jennifer Files Beerline, ‘Anti-Dilution Law, New and Improved: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006’, BerkeleyTech. Law Journal p. 511, volume 23, 2008.
  9. Dev Gangjee, ‘The Polymorphism of Trademark Dilution in India’, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems p.230 volume17:1, 2008, p. 232
  10. Wales Law Journal p.1, volume 4:17, 2011, p. 2.
  11. Courtland L. Reichman, ‘State and Federal Trademark Dilution’, Franchise Law Journal p. 111, volume.17:4, 1998, pp. 132-137.
  12. Frank I. Schechter, ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’, Harvard Law Review p. 813 volume 40:6, 1927, p. 833.
  13. Terry Ahearn, ‘Dilution by Blurring under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995: What Is It and How Is It Shown’, Santa Clara Law Review p.890, volume 41:1, 2001, p. 893.
  14. Britt N. Lovejoy, ‘Tarnishing the Dilution by Tarnishment Cause of Action: Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc. and V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley, Compared’, Berkeley Tech. Law Journal p. 619, volume 26:1, 2011, p. 623.
  15. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley, 2001, 6th Circuit, 259 F.3d 464, p. 466.
  16. Yale Electric Corporation V. Robertson, 1928, 2nd Circuit 26 F.2d 972, p. 972.
  17. Schechter, (n 1) pp. 813-833.
  18. Eastman Photographic Materials Co Ltd v John Griffith S Cycle Corporation Ltd and Kodak Cycle Co Ltd. 1898, 15 R.P.C. 105.
  19. Vogue Co. v. Thompson-Hudson Co., 1924, 6th Circuit, 300 F. 509, p. 509.
  20. Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., 1925, 3rd Circuit 4 F.2d 333, p. 335.
  21. Schechter, (n 1) pp. 813-833.
  22. Michael Adams, ‘The Dilution Solution: The History and Evolution of Trademark Dilution’, Tech. & Intellectual. Property Law Journal p. 139, 2002, volume 2:1, p. 143.
  23. Wall v. Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., 1925, 4 F.2d 333, p. 334.
  24. Federal Trademark Dilution Act, 2006, United States of America, s. 1125(c)(1).
  25. Ibid, s.1127.
  26. Beerline (n 8), p.511.
  27. Ibid.
  28. New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. N.Y., N.Y. Hotel LLC, 2002, 2nd Circuit, 293 F.3d 550, p. 550.
  29. Thane Intern., Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 2002, 9th Circuit, 305 F.3d 894, p. 895.
  30. TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Communications Inc., 2001, 2nd Circuit 244 F.3d 88, p.98.
  31. Beerline (n 8), p.513.
  32. Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc., 1999, 2nd Circuit, 191 F.3d 208 p. 229; I. P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.,1998, 1st Circuit 163 F.3d 27, p. 50.
  33. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 2003, 537 U.S. 418, p. 420.
  34. Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 2006, United States of America, s. 1125(c) (1) (4).
  35. Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 2006, United States of America, s. (c) (4) (B).
  36. Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 2006, United States of America, s. 1125(c) (2) (A).
  37. TCPIP Holding Company, Inc. v. Haar Communications Inc., 2001, 244 F.3d 88, p. 90.
  38. Wawa Dairy Farms v. Haaf, 1996, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1629, p. 1630.
  39. Nailtiques Cosmetic Corp. v. Salon Sciences Corp., 1997, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1995, p. 1995.
  40. Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Intern., Inc., 2007, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1820, p. 1820.
  41. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, 2007, 507 F.3d 252, p. 253.
  42. Daimler Benz v. Hybo Hindustan, Delhi High Court, India, 1994 A.I.R. 239, p. 239.
  43. Ibid.
  44. The Trade Marks Act, 1994, United Kingdom, s. 10(3).
  45. Hamdard National Foundation v. Abdul Jalil, High Court of Delhi, India, IA 7385/2004 IN CS(OS) 1240/2004.
  46. Ford Motor Co. v. C.R. Borman, High Court of Delhi, India, 2008, (38) PTC 76, p. 77.
  47. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(4).
  48. Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 2003, 537 U.S. 418, p. 420.
  49. The Lanham (Trademark) Act, 1946, United States of America, s. 43 (c)(3) reads: (3) Exclusions The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection: (A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such 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 use in connection with—
  50. (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
  51. (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.
  52. (B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
  53. (C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.
  54. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(8)(b).
  55. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(8)(c).
  56. Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 2006, United States of America, s.1125(c) (2) (B).
  57. Ibid.
  58. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(4).
  59. Ibid.
  60. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(4).
  61. WIPO/Paris Union Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protections of Well-Known Marks adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the Thirty-Fourth Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO Sept 20 to 29, 1999 .
  62. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 29(4).
  63. The Trademark Act, 1999, India, s. 11.