Opinion ID: 204313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Moseley Decision and Adoption of the TDRA

Text: After our decision in Thane, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that greatly impacted many courts of appeals' interpretations of the FTDA. In Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115, 155 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003), the Court held, contrary to the approach that had been taken by this court, as well as the courts of appeals for the Second and Sixth Circuits, that the text of the FTDA unambiguously requires a showing of actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution. Id. at 433, 123 S.Ct. 1115 (emphasis added). However, this requirement of actual dilution was not long-lived. In 2006, largely in response to the Moseley decision, Congress enacted the TDRA. In doing so, Congress did not simply alter the language on which the Court in Moseley had relied; [5] instead, Congress replaced the FTDA with a more detailed statute. The TDRA did provide relief for likely, as opposed to actual, dilution. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). However, it also explicitly provided relief for dilution by blurring or by tarnishment, id., and defined both types of dilution, id. § 1125(c)(2). Section 1125(c)(1) of Title 15 now states in relevant part: 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 confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). Subsection (c)(2) defines dilution by blurring accordingly: (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. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B). Several aspects of the TDRA are worth noting. The first, as mentioned previously, is that Congress did not merely make surgical linguistic changes to the FTDA in response to Moseley. Instead, Congress created a new, more comprehensive federal dilution act. Furthermore, any reference to the standards commonly employed by the courts of appealsidentical, nearly identical, or substantially similarare absent from the statute. The TDRA defines dilution by blurring as the association arising from the similarity between a mark or a trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Id. § 1125(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Moreover, in the non-exhaustive list of dilution factors that Congress set forth, the first is [t]he degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. Id. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i). Thus, the text of the TDRA articulates a different standard for dilution from that which we utilized under the FTDA.