In the Senate of the United States,
March 8, 2006.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 683) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Trademark
Act of 1946 with respect to dilution by blurring or
tarnishment.’’, do pass with the following
AMENDMENT:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006’’.
†
HR 683 EAS
(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in this Act to the
Trademark Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act enti-
tled ‘‘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 pur-
poses’’, 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 distinctive-
ness, shall be entitled to an injunction against an-
other 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 confusion, of competition, or of actual eco-
nomic injury.
†
HR 683 EAS
‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—(A) For purposes of para-
graph (1), a mark is famous if it is widely recognized
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 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.
‘‘(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 like-
†
HR 683 EAS
ly to cause dilution by blurring, the court may con-
sider 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 dis-
tinctiveness 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 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 simi-
larity 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
†
HR 683 EAS
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 connec-
tion with—
‘‘(i) advertising or promotion that per-
mits consumers to compare goods or serv-
ices; or
‘‘(ii) identifying and parodying, criti-
cizing, or commenting 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 prov-
ing 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 reg-
ister, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole,