H. R. 683
One Hundred Ninth Congress
of the
United States of America 
AT THE SECOND SESSION 
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 
the third day of January, two thousand and six 
An Act 
To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect to dilution by blurring or 
tarnishment.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trademark 
Dilution Revision Act of 2006’’. 
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in this Act to the Trademark 
Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 
provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in 
commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international 
conventions, and for other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1946 (15 
U.S.C. 1051 et seq.). 
SEC. 2. DILUTION BY BLURRING; DILUTION BY TARNISHMENT. 
Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) 
is amended— 
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(c) DILUTION BY BLURRING; DILUTION BY TARNISHMENT.— 
‘‘(1) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.—Subject to the principles of equity, 
the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently 
or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an 
injunction against another person who, at any time after the 
owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark 
or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution 
by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, 
regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confu-
sion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. 
‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general con-
suming public of the United States as a designation of source 
of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining 
whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, 
the court may consider all relevant factors, including the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of 
advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised 
or publicized by the owner or third parties. 
‘‘(ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of 
sales of goods or services offered under the mark. 
‘‘(iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark.
H. R. 683—2
‘‘(iv) Whether the mark was registered under the Act 
of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or 
on the principal register. 
‘‘(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution by blurring’ 
is association arising from the similarity between a mark or 
trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness 
of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade 
name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may 
consider all relevant factors, including the following: 
‘‘(i) The degree of similarity between the mark or trade 
name and the famous mark. 
‘‘(ii) The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness 
of the famous mark. 
‘‘(iii) The extent to which the owner of the famous 
mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the 
mark. 
‘‘(iv) The degree of recognition of the famous mark. 
‘‘(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name 
intended to create an association with the famous mark. 
‘‘(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade 
name and the famous mark. 
‘‘(C) 
For 
purposes 
of 
paragraph 
(1), 
‘dilution 
by 
tarnishment’ is association arising from the similarity between 
a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the 
reputation of the famous mark. 
‘‘(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— 
‘‘(i) advertising or promotion that permits con-
sumers to compare goods or services; or 
‘‘(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or com-
menting upon the famous mark owner or the goods 
or services of the famous mark owner. 
‘‘(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary. 
‘‘(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark. 
‘‘(4) BURDEN OF PROOF.—In a civil action for trade dress 
dilution under this Act for trade dress not registered on the 
principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection 
has the burden of proving that— 
‘‘(A) the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is 
not functional and is famous; and 
‘‘(B) 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. 
‘‘(5) ADDITIONAL REMEDIES.—In an action brought under 
this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled 
to injunctive relief as set forth in section 34. The owner of 
the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set 
forth in sections 35(a) and 36, subject to the discretion of 
the court and the principles of equity if—
H. R. 683—3
‘‘(A) the mark or trade name that is likely to cause 
dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment was first 
used in commerce by the person against whom the injunc-
tion is sought after the date of enactment of the Trademark 
Dilution Revision Act of 2006; and 
‘‘(B) in a claim arising under this subsection— 
‘‘(i) by reason of dilution by blurring, the person 
against whom the injunction is sought willfully 
intended to trade on the recognition of the famous 
mark; or 
‘‘(ii) by reason of dilution by tarnishment, the per-
son against whom the injunction is sought willfully 
intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark. 
‘‘(6) OWNERSHIP OF VALID REGISTRATION A COMPLETE BAR 
TO ACTION.—The ownership by a person of a valid registration 
under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 
1905, or on the principal register under this Act shall be a 
complete bar to an action against that person, with respect 
to that mark, that— 
‘‘(A)(i) is brought by another person under the common 
law or a statute of a State; and 
‘‘(ii) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution 
by tarnishment; or 
‘‘(B) asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or 
harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, 
or form of advertisement. 
‘‘(7) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall be 
construed to impair, modify, or supersede the applicability of 
the patent laws of the United States.’’; and 
(2) in subsection (d)(1)(B)(i)(IX), by striking ‘‘(c)(1) of section 
43’’ and inserting ‘‘(c)’’. 
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 
(a) MARKS REGISTRABLE ON THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER.—Section 
2(f) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1052(f)) is amended— 
(1) by striking the last two sentences; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘A mark which 
would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by 
tarnishment under section 43(c), may be refused registration 
only pursuant to a proceeding brought under section 13. A 
registration for a mark which would be likely to cause dilution 
by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 43(c), 
may be canceled pursuant to a proceeding brought under either 
section 14 or section 24.’’. 
(b) OPPOSITION.—Section 13(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 
(15 U.S.C. 1063(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
‘‘as a result of dilution’’ and inserting ‘‘the registration of any 
mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution 
by tarnishment’’. 
(c) CANCELLATION.—Section 14 of the Trademark Act of 1946 
(15 U.S.C. 1064) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph 
(1) by striking ‘‘, including as a result of dilution under section 
43(c),’’ and inserting ‘‘, including as a result of a likelihood of 
dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 43(c),’’. 
(d) MARKS FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER.—The second sen-
tence of section 24 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1092) 
is amended to read as follows:
H. R. 683—4
‘‘Whenever any person believes that such person is or will be 
damaged by the registration of a mark on the supplemental reg-
ister— 
‘‘(1) for which the effective filing date is after the date 
on which such person’s mark became famous and which would 
be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by 
tarnishment under section 43(c); or 
‘‘(2) on grounds other than dilution by blurring or dilution 
by tarnishment, such person may at any time, upon payment 
of the prescribed fee and the filing of a petition stating the 
ground therefor, apply to the Director to cancel such registra-
tion.’’. 
(e) DEFINITIONS.—Section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 
(15 U.S.C. 1127) is amended by striking the definition relating 
to the term ‘‘dilution’’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.