FINAL EXAM:

• What does this statute do?
   
  
• When did it take effect?
   
  
• What are the guidelines to determine which marks are distinctive?
   
  
• Does the statute protect unregistered marks?
   
  
• What is the statute's definition of dilution?
   
  
• How have courts defined "blurring" and "tarnishment"? Are these likely covered by the new statute?
   
  
• What examples of violations under the FTDA are given?
   
  
• What remedy does the statute allow?
   
  
• Does the statute preempt state dilution laws?
   
  
• What First Amendment-protected uses are expressly exempted by the statute?
   
  
• What is the purpose of the statute?
   
  
• What issues under the statute are unsettled?

• What are the facts of the case?
   
  
• What was the outcome of this case and the court's reasoning to reach its conclusion?
   
  
• Would the Moseley store be more likely to blur or to tarnish Victoria's Secret trademark?
   
  
• According to the court, does the FTDA likely cover blurring and tarnishment?
   
  
• Is objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark (as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective "likelihood of dilution" standard) a requisite for relief under the FTDA? Does the FTDA require proof of actual dilution? What was the court's reasoning?
   
  
• Must the consequences of dilution, such as an actual loss of sales or profits, also be proved?
   
  
• At least where the marks at issue are not identical, would the mere fact that consumers mentally associate the junior user's mark with a famous mark be sufficient to establish actionable dilution?
   
  

Return to Law/Ethics Adv./PR Home Page