I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 683 
To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect to dilution by blurring 
or tarnishment. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FEBRUARY 9, 2005 
Mr. SMITH of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 with respect to 
dilution by blurring or tarnishment. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives 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 2005’’. 
(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 protec-
tion of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the pro-
visions 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 prin-
ciples of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is 
distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinc-
tiveness, 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 as a designation of 
source of the person’s goods or services that is likely 
to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by 
tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence 
of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of ac-
tual economic injury. 
‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—(A) For purposes of para-
graph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recog-
nized by the general consuming public of the United
States as a designation of source of the goods or 
services of the mark’s owner. In determining wheth-
er a mark possesses the requisite degree of recogni-
tion, the court may consider all relevant factors, in-
cluding the following: 
‘‘(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. 
‘‘(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution 
by blurring’ is association arising from the similarity 
between a designation of source and a famous mark 
that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. 
In determining whether a designation of source is 
likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may 
consider all relevant factors, including the following: 
‘‘(i) The degree of similarity between the 
designation of source 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 exclu-
sive use of the mark. 
‘‘(iv) The degree of recognition of the fa-
mous mark. 
‘‘(v) Whether the user of the designation of 
source intended to create an association with 
the famous mark. 
‘‘(vi) Any actual association between the 
designation of source and the famous mark. 
‘‘(C) For purposes of paragraph (1), ‘dilution 
by tarnishment’ is association arising from the simi-
larity between a designation of source 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) Fair use of a famous mark by an-
other person in comparative commercial adver-
tising or promotion to identify the competing 
goods or services of the owner of the famous 
mark. 
‘‘(B) Noncommercial use of a designation 
of source.