Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM Document 233-2 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 12
REPoRT
109-23
TRADEMARK DILLNION REVISION ACT OF 2OO5
MA!cH 1?, 2006,-Committed to ihe Comnittee of th Whol Hous on Ure gtate of th Union and ordered to b pnnted
Mr. SENSENBREN'|,IER, from t}le Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the followins
RE P O Rl'
lTo aeonpany E.R. 6831 Ilncluding co.t eltinate of the Coreresional Budget Officel
The Committ on the Judiciary, t whom waE referred the bill (H.R. 683) to amend the TrademarL Act of 1946 with respect to dilution by blur:ring or tarnishment, having considercd the sam, report favorably thereon with an amndment and recommendthat th bill as amendeddo paEs.
CONTENTS
Pu@oseqnd Sunmarv PacliErcundand Ned ror $ L.sElarion ..... . ... ... . hes n98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . Conmntee ConsrdeEtion Vote of th Committ Com nit he O v r s i8ltFindr nF . - - - - - - - . - . ---,.-,,... New Budst Aulhoriry.nd Td Exp.ndiDrE Consressional Budsr Omc Cosr&flm6r. ......., . .. Perfomane G.als and ObJ. ConsutulionalAuthonLv Sb Se(tion b' SctionADalys$ and Discussion... . ........ . . . . . C,\s1eesin Existins Law Mad by LhBill, a R.ponpd 1 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 I
. ..,
TEE AMENDMENT The amendmentis as follows: Strik all after the enactingclauseand insrt the following:
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 2 of 12
(a) SHoRr TnLE.-This Act may be cited as th "T.adenark Dilution Revision (b) RtTERENcEs Any refernc this Aci t ure Tradema.k A.1 of 1946 slall in be a rfere.ce io the Aci entitled AD Act to provide ior th resistration and protec tradnarks usd in commr@,to cerry out th ptuvisions of cerhin i.te. tion of national convntjoN, and for olher purposes",approvedJuly 6, 1946 (15 USC Sectio! 49 of the Tradenar! Act of 1946(15 U.S.C, 1125)is zmend.d' r ' by r r jk inc s J bs e . l i o n. a n d I n s . n r n 3 l h e r o l l o w r n e '.r DrLr IoN bY Bt.!,FIrrNc, DrLLnro\ BYT4!rsHsu 1 li I NJ h. r m t uL. r F . - - s u b j e d l o t h e p r i t ui p l . s o f F q J l y , r h p o q n p r o f 3 r am uusm a' L lhr l is d r s l r n c u v r.n l l e r e r t l yo . l h r c u g h a . q J i r c d d i s r i n c r i v P . ness, shsll b. entil,led io an idunction asainst another prson vho, dt any tim aftr tl ownr's na.k has be@a lanous, connences use of a ma.k or trede name in ommer@ that is likely to caue dilution by blurin3 or dilution by tanishnnr of the fanous nark, r6sardlssof th presence ebs.4 of actlal or i or lik ely c ont us iorolc om p e r i t o n , ' o f s d J t l p . o n o m i cn j u r y . o ' ' 2 DL. . Nnr uNfDrous rf f o r p u r p o s e s C p 'a g r a p h | . t m d r k o '3 ii is wid.ly recosnized' A ,th6 soneral consunina public ofthe United Stats as by mJrk s ownpr. In d4er. a dcdmdllon of suu'
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 3 of 12
"(i) by rasonof dilution by bluring, the personasainst whon the injnnction is sousht willfully intnddt lrad on the recogniiionot ih. ''(ii) bJ reasonofdilutron by ta.nishment, lhe personaaarnstwhom ihe iniunction is sougbtwilllully intnddto ham the reputation ol tle {amous mark. 1!e owner of the famow mar* shall alsa be ntitled to the .emediessct fo.th in sections35(a) and 36, subj.i to tl dilretion ofthe cou.i and the pnnciples rc AcrIoN. The "(5) OwlEBssF oF v{D ! owne$hip by a prson of a vllid .gi6hation undd the Ad of March 3, 1831, or tn Acl ol Fbrusry 20, I905, or on lhe pnnapal rgisrpr LndPr rhrs A4 shall pp.son. qrh rpspeclto lhal msrl. bp s ,onpl.F bd b an actDn assinst the thet is brought by another p.non undr'\tL comnon law o. a statute of a State dnd ihat sls to prevent dilution by blunins or dilution by tarnishment, o. thqt a$rts eny claim of actual or likty damag or hdh lo the drstinciive.ess or r.putation ofa mark, labI,o. fon ofadvtriiseneni. ; a.d (2) in anbsecrio.(d)(1)(B)(i)(IX), sfiling "(cI1) ofsecl,ion43' and insert' by
lt.crsmMl. oN rHE PRrNcrpd Rt{tsor8, Section 2(l) dl rhd 1!) M*6 TrademarkAct of1946115 U.s c r052(l) is ancndcd (1) by sinliry tle last iwo sentencestand (2) by adding at the nd t! lollowing, 1\ nark *bich would b l&ely to 43(.), nay ausedilutjon by bluri.g or dilutio! by tuniBhmeni und.r secl,ion b tulusd resisrralion only purslani 10 a proceedina brcusht under section 13 A .egist.ation fo. s Dark which would be likely to cd$e dilution by bluning or dilution by iarnishment und.r sction.13(c), may be canceldpursuant to a proceeding brorght under eitle. section 14 or section 2.1." (b) OPosnoN.-S.ction 13(a)of th Tradenark Act of 1946(15 U.S.C. 1063(a)) is anended in th first s.tne by *nting "as a .sult of dilutioD'and inse.tilg "ihe resistration of any marl which would b likely to caus diiution by blurrins o. dilulior by tamishment". (c) ca\cDlcrroN.-section 14 0f the Tradmark Acr of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 106.r) b dmnded, the matte. p.ecedjngpq.scraph (rIin (1) by stnkins ", includins as a result ofdilution unde. section43(c),"ia.d (r) by inseriing "(A) for which ihe constru.tiy use date is aftr th date on which the pedttuners mark becane fqnous and which would be likely io causediluiion by bluri.s or dilution bJ larnislnnt unde. secrrDn 49(c)jo. (B) on s.ounds olher ihan dilutioo by bhring o. dilution by tqmishment after ''rebruary 20, 1905". (d) Msre rcR rsE SLppnwMA! 4EclSrER. The second sntnce of section 2., oa Lhe Tradmark Act of 1946 (16 U.S.C. 1092)is amnddto rsd N follows: "Menever any pl.on believesthat such pe.son is or wiil b damasedby th res. istretion ot a mark on th supplem.ntal reAistr"(1) fo. whic! tlre eftective filins dat is after the date on wlich such persons mark becamefamousand which would be likely to caN dilution by blurring o. dilution by tarnishnent under section43(c),o. "(2) on srounds othe. thM dilution br blndins or dilulion by tamishnent, such pe.son may at ery time, upon payment of th. prescribed fee and lhe filing of a petition stating lbe gronnd the.efo., apply io the Dircto. to csncelsuch .egrstra ie) DErrNlrroNs. Sectnn 45 or the T.ldena.k Acr of 19!6 (15 U S C r12?i is anended by strikins ihe dfinition relatins t "dilution PuRPosE a,\D SnMM,\RY
The purtose of H.R. 683, the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005,"is to amend the Federal Trademark Diluiion Act I (FTDA) in the wake of a rocent Supreme Court decision .ega.dine the stsndard ofharm under the statute and conflictins circuit caselaw on other relevant issues.
r r\b r, No r04 eAGss5)
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 4 of 12
4
BAc(cRouND ANDNEED roR TEE LEGTSLATToN TRADEMAR(l-AW CDNERALLY Tradernark taw "identifies" soods and services.'? men an individual encounters a mark (e.s., a word or symbol) in a store or watchins a commercial, he or she can d.veiop an assoclatronbequality. brand twnen i productor serviceand irs correspo;ding reputation, or origin. Genrally, a trademark consistsof the name Lhe chain McDonald. or losoof a Droducr. examDle. restaurani For has irademirks in rts name; its golden archeslogo, and othpr marks associated with its business.in addition, trademark law also may protect the drstinctive features of a produd's packaging.Exrmples of famous and distrnchve packaging include the shape ol Coca-Cola's bottle or Tiffany's little bluejewelry box.
DILUTION OENEEA'LY AND IlIE FEDERAL TRA'EMARK DILUTION ACT
Trademark rights are unique because they are based on Federal as well as state law. In fact, msny stateE offer trademark prctection asainst "dilution." Dilution is defined as "the lessenins of the capacity of a famous mark to idntifv and distinguish soods or services.egardless of the presencor absenceot (a) compet;tion btweenthe owner ofthe famousInark and other parties: or (b) the likelrhood confusion, of mrctale.or deception.3 Coirnshave defined dilution as either the bluffins of a mark's product identification or the tarnishment ofthe affirmative associations mark has come to a Dilution does not rely upon the standard tst of inftingement, that is, the likelihood of confusion,deception,or mistake. Rather, ditution occuis when the unauthorized use of a famous mark reducesrhe publics percep(rcn that the mark signifiessomcthins unique.singular, particular.a other words,dilution can resull or In in the loss of the ma.k's distinctivenessand, in womt-case scenarios, the omels rights in it. In ordr to promotunifomity and certainty for trademark ownem, a Federal dilution statute;as enacted 6 1995.5The purpos of the FTDA is to protect famous tradmarks, whether rcgisterd or unregistercd,from Bubsequent uses that blur the distinctiveness of the mark or tarnish or disp8rage even in the absence a it, of likelibood ofconfusion.The F"TDAaDDhes when unauthonzed usels attempt to tlade upon the soodwill ;;d establishedrenorvnof such marks, and thereby dilute their distinctive quality.6 The FTDA specifiesthe following factors that a court may con sider, but is not limited to, in detemining whether a mark is distinctive and famousl . the de$ee of inherent or acouired distinctiveness of the mark; .1 h . p ."p ..."-
r4H.R ",ilf,'fidl" ' f iiit No. 104-364 " ftD.i.ied inUS.C.CA.N Rep. 995)
O
' ". "."r ",
ut 1029,1030
6 H.R. Rep No. 104-364 (1995) reprinttd in U.S C C A N. dr 1029 Seeolsa Lori K.dfte.Jo.abN, JL.liciat Inbrprebtio4 al the Fed2ral ?ndenorL DilLliaa Ad af 1995, 66 v. cin L Rev titg
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 5 of 12
5 . the duration and extent of use of the mark in onnection with the goodsor serviceswith which th mark is used; . the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the . the _geographical extent of the trading ara in which the marx 1suseol . the channels of trade for the soods or serviceswith which the malk is used; . the desreeof recosnition lhe mark in the tradins areas of and chinneh or uratreused by the marks owner and ihe per son asainst whom the injunction is sought; and . the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties.?
MOSELY V. V SECRET CATA],OGUE, INC.
Following passageof the FTDA, the circuit courts of appeal split as to vr'hetherthe gtatute required the owner of a famous mark to pmve actual harm as a prcrequtuit to injunctive relief. This question was addressed the SupremeCourt in the caseof Mosely u. by v SecrctCalolocue,,rrc.3 a dilution acrionbelweenrhe lingprie Jn ,Viclor'aLitcompany Victori-a Secrer and a small rerail company s tle Secret) that sold, among other items, adult "novelties," the Court dtarnined that th FTDA ". . . unambiguously requires a showins of actual dilution. rather than a likelihood of dilution."s The Subcornmittee Courts, the Intemet, and Intellectual Propon erty rcceivedtestimony in 2004ro and 2005 on this issue and other drlution topics. Witncsses at these hearings focusedon the standard of harm threshold aniculated in Mosely. For xample, a representative of the Irtemational Trademark A$ociation observed provable that'fbly the time messursble. damase10 the mark has occurred much time hds passed, the damsse has been done. and the remedy, which is injunctive reliel is far less effective."11 The Commrttee endorses lhis position. The Mas"lystdndardcredrF"an undue burden for trademark holders who contest dilutms uses and should be revised.
CIIIER ISSUES ADDRESSET'BY II.R, 633
In addition, the circuits have split on the meaning and applica, tion of othr core provisions of the statute. This absenceof uniformity concernsthe Committee, as it complicatsthe ability of mark holders to pmtect their property and businesses plan their to commercialaffairs. Hearings revealed that the rcgional circuits intrpret the FTDA diferently on such mattersas what constiturps famous' mark, a whethermarks with "acquired drstinctivFness prorecred are under the statute, and whether the FTDA covers dilution by "tarnish-', rs uscl rrrst"r r r 2 3 s.ct
1 1 1 s1 2 0 0 3 ) )aEeorinEE an L Canmitte Prnt to Aned the |2d2tu1 Ttud2nntL D Lti.n Ad, r03rh Crnc . 2d SesE., Serial No 12l[pt\\ 22,2ooa) it,tioh Rrrisirn Act of 2405 Bdote th. suban4 an cauils, se$ (February 17,2005)(8bhee.t ofAnne cundelfinge. d. behdltdfihe rntedalionll Trdde. msk Arsociadonai 3) {tunimlr?r Gudelfinger)
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 6 of 12
mont." 1' The rcsulting problemswerc conciselysumma zed at the 2005 hearing as follows: Subcommittee's tDlilution la,r in the United States is moving in every dircction All the while, except the one that it needs to foruard. . famous marks and their value both to consumers and their a[ risk from blurring and tarnishment,and thi.d Dartres have litdc $idance resardinqwhat marks lhev can sdfelyadopr wirhoutlisk of dilulion lGbrlity. The lack of claritv ir the law and the sDlirsin the variouscircuitsare re sulti;g in forum shopping ;nd unnecessarilycostly lawsuits For these ressonsa .vision ofdilution law is needed13 The Committe subscribesto this view and H.R 683 senes as a lesislative iosponset" thes problems.
HEAiTNGS
No hearinss were held on H.R. 683. CoMMtt_TEE CoNSIDERATIoN On March 3,2005, the Subcommitteeon Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property met in opn sessionand ordered favorably reporled the bill H.n. 683, as anended, by voice vote, a quorun being presnt. On March 9, 2005, the Committ met in opon sessionand ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 683 with an amendm"nlby voicevote.a quorumberngpresenr.
VoTE oF TIiE COMMITTEO
In comDliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the nubs of the House of Representatives, Committeenotes that thre wer no the recordedvotes during Committeeconsideration H.R- 683. of CoMMrrrEEOvERstcrlrFINDINoS In compliancewith clause 3(c)(1)of Rule XtlI of the Ruls of the House of Representatives, th Committeereports that the findings and recommendations the Committee,based on oversight activiof ties under clause 2(bX1)of Rule X ofthe Rules ofthe House of Rep rosentatives,are incorporatedin the descriptiveportions of this reAuIHoRrry aND TA-\ ExlENDrruREs NEw BUDGET Clause 3(cX2) of Rule XIII of the Rules ol the House of Rpresentatives is inapplicable becausethis lgislation does not pro' vide new budgetary authority or increased tax experditurcs. CoNcREssIoNAL BUDeET OFFTCE Cosr ESTTMATE In compliancewith clause3(cX3)of Rule )
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 7 of 12
7 BudgeL Olfice undFr sFctron by the DirecLor the Congressional of 402 ofthe consrc.sronal BudgetAct of t974: U.S. CoNGREss, OFFICE, CoNcREsstoNAL BUDGET DC, Mdrch 14, 2005 Washington, Jr., Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER,Choi.man, Committeeon the Judicidry, Wdshington, DC. House of Reprcsentatiues, Budget Oftrcehas pre' The DEARMR. CEATRMAN: Congressional pared the enclosed cost estimat for H.R. 683, the '{rademark Diiution RevisionAct of 2005." ue lfyou wrsh further derailson this esLimate, rill be pJeased to prorede them. The CBO sraffcontactis MelissaE. Zimmerman. who can b rachedat 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Doucr,As HoLTZ-EAXrN,
Enclosure cc: HonorableJohn Conyers, ft. Rankins Member H.R. 683-Tademdrh Dilution ReuisionAct of2005. H.R. 683 would make hangesto trademark law to strcngthen a trademark owner's defenseaeainst th use ol othe. similar marks in the market that could harm the reputation of the tmdemark or confuse consumels. CBO estimates that implementing H.R.683 would not have a sisnificant effect on spending subject to appropriation. Enactins the bill would noi effect direct spendingor reveH.R. 683 conlainsno inlersovermenlal or privale-secror manAct and rould date" as defined the Untunded in Mandale"Rform imposeno costson State, local,or tribal govemmeDtsTtle CBO stafi coDtatfor this estimate is Melissa E. Zimmerman, who can be reachedat 22r"2a60. The stimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Asstutant Director for Budget AnalPERFoRMANCE GoALs ANDOBJEcrnBs H.R. 683 does not authorize fundins. Therefore,clause 3(cX4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives inappl; is cable.H.R- 683 amendsthe FederalTrademark Dilution Act tD Drorhe d'lurionol a prolp.lcdIrademrk. lorl Jga.nsr
CoNSTITL'TIoNA' Au'rHoRny STATEIIENT
Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(1)(4)of the Rules of the House of Represntatives, Committeefinds the authority fo. this legisla' the tion in Article I. section8. clause8. of the Constitution. SEcrroN-By-SEcrtoN A"\ALysIsANDDrscussroN Act may be cited as the 'Tradomark Section 1. Short Title. The Dilution RevisionAct of 2005." Section2. Dilution br Blurring: Dilution br Tarnishment.Subject to the pinciples of equity, the owner of a famous distinctivo mark
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 8 of 12
use is entitled to an injunction against any personwho commences in commercea ma* that i3 Iikely to causdilution by blurine or Section 2 of H.R. 683 speciflesthat injunctive relif is appro. actual or likely confusionamong the publici . competirion or between ownerand the person: the . actualeconomic injury to the owner. Under 52, a mark may only be "famous"ifit is widely recognized bv the eeneral consumine oublic in the United States as a source disienaiionof rhe soods ;r'servicesof the marks owner. In derermining whethera mark is famous. coun is permihedLoconsider a ''all relevant factors in addrtion to prescribedconditions ser forh r.ach rn H.R.683. includingthe duralion.ex(enl.rnd geographic ofadvertisins and publicity of tbe msrk. Again, a court is permitted to coftider all relevant factors in determining the presenc dilution by blurring- Spcificfacto$ that of provide guidancein this regard includel . the desree of similarity between the sourcedesignation and the famou! mark: . the decreeof inherent or acquircd distinctivenessof the famoua marK; ano . th degreeof recognitionofthe famous mark. Section 2 of H.R. 683 enumratessDcifrc exclusionsthat do not constitute dilutionr fair use in comparativecomme.cial advertisins or promolion idenhfythe famouamark omer's competing good! to or services; use,other rhan as a desisnarion source, fair of includ rng for purposesof identifuinq and parod.ying. cntrcizing- or commennnsuDonthe lamousmark owneror the famousmark owner's eoods oi sirvices; and all forms of news reportins and news comThe ownef of a famous mark is only entitld to injunctive relief under $2. unless,in an actronbased'ondilution by blurrins. rhe delendant ltilltull, inlcnded lo l.radeon the fanous inark s reiognirion:or in an actionbasedon diluLionbJ ramishment, the defendanr willlully mtended tradeon ihe famousmarks reputation. to In either cas,the owner may also seek damages, costs,and attorneys' feesra as well as destructionof th infringing articles16under sep, arate Lanbam Act provisrons. Subs(antial Doni;ns of Q2 are basedon (he exislins FTDA. bur rh"re are conipicuous dilTerences betreen lhe tr\o iexLs.Under H.R. 683, and in responseto the Moselr decision,actual harm is not a prerequisiteto injunctive relief. H.R.683 also deines dilution by "bluning:' as well as by "tamishment." In addition, the legisla lion expandsthe threshold of "fame" and thereby deniesprotection for marks that are famous only in "niche" rnarkets. Finally, $2 would protect trade dress or proiuct configurationand it wouid not preempt state remediesfor dilution. Sp.tion3 Confornne An.ndnpnl". Secrions 2,n. I3 r . l4 rnd 24 ol rhe Lanham Acr were amended bv rhc Tradamark Amond-
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 9 of 12
menrsAct of 1999rPub.L. No. 106-43'to gYantownerso{ famous or reA4stration seekcancellalron or the nsht l,oopDose trademarks oia mark-oneithArthe principalor supplemental the reaistration reeistels on the ffounds ihat such reFsrration would causp dilur io"n of the famoJs marks under the TTDA Act. The conformine amendments mad to these sections would maintain the rights sranted bv the Trademark AmendmentsAct of 1999 The new lan' s.ctionsso thal lhet merelyupdates.these Euag"in ihe legislatioD aom;orL with cirtain kev chanq.s made to section 43rcl specrlicall; that the standardior oro;ns a dilul,ionclarm is likelihood of djlution snd lhar bolh dilutio; by blurring and drlurion by tarnishment ar actionable. N CHANGES ExrsrlNa LAw MADE BY ttIE BiLL, As REPoRTED In comDliance with clause 3{e) of rute XIII of the Rules of the Houseof R;presentatives,.hanges in existing Ias madF by,the br. ro as reoorted. are shown as tollows(exrstrnglaw Droposeo Deomrris printed rn italics, in ne* red ii enclosed black brackets, -srt.r existing Iaw in which no change is proposedis shown in mman)l ACT OF JIJLY 6, 1946
(Conmonly releftd to $ tle 'Trad.marl< Aci of 1946 ) AN ACT To ptuvid aor th resttration and prctction of tradenarls lsed h con' mrce, to cany out the prcvisions of cnain intnational co.ventions, and for
TITLE I_TIIE
PRINCIPAI- REGISTER
MARKS REGISTRABLE ON THE PRINCIPAI RECISTER
SEc. 2. No trademark bv which the soodsof the aDDlicantmav be distinsuished ftom the e6odsof otheri shalt be reds;d resistra'tion on the pincipal register oD account of its nature unless it
(0 Eacept as expresslyeicluded in subsectioft (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of this section, nothins herin shall prevnt the regrstration of a mark usd by the applicant which has bcomedistinctive of the applicant'sgoodsin commerce. The Directo. may accept as prima facie evidencethat the mark has becomedistinctive, goodsin commerce, as used on or in connectionwith the applicant'B proof of substantiaily exclusive and continuor$ use thereof as a mark by the applicant iD comnerce for the frve years before the is date on which the clain of distinctiveness made. Nothine in this (he regisrrarion a mark which. $h;n usnd shsll prevenL of secrion on or in connectionwith the goods of the applicant, is primarily geographicaltydeceptively misdescriptivof thm, and which became distinctive of the applicant'Egoods in commercebeforc the date of the enactment of the North American Free Trade Asreement ImplementationAct.
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 10 of 12
10 IA mark which when used would cause dilution under sction 43(c) mav be refused resistration onlv Dursuanl l.o a Droceedrns brousht ,,nder section 13. -{ reeisuation'fo'r a mark which when used would cause dituiion undd ;ection 43(c) may be canceled pursuant to a D ro c c e d i n sb ro u e h t u n der ei Lher sccl i on l 4 or secti on 24.f A morb ;h rc h w o i l d b p -l i h p l t t o tause Jtl ul i on bt bl utrtnE or di tuttun b) tarnishtnent under section 13(c), nay be rcfused rcgistration only D u r" u o n t to d p .o ,n .l tnp brcuE ht updpr sp.ti an 13. A rcA i sl ratto4 for d mark uhich would he li["lv to nuse drlutton bv btutins or ditution b\ torFishncnt under se;lion 43rc,, noy be coneebd pulsudnt to a proceed.inE brought under either section 14 or section 24.
OPPOSITION
SEc. 13. rai Anv Derson $ho believes that he $ould be damaged by rhe resis'rili,;n of a mark upon the principal register. includins [as a result ofdilutionl rIp .eaisrrarionol anr motk which uould be hkelv to cause dilution b blurrinp or dilution b\ tomishnent unier secrion 43rc,,may,-upon pa;menr of rhp pr;scribed fee, file an oppositionin the Patent and Trademark Ofiice, staline lhe sroundsrherefor. within rhirtv davs aRer the Dublica rion ;dFr;ubs.clion (ar oa seflion 12 ;f tlii6 Act of rhi' mrrk Upon wrrtten requestpnor to rbc exprra-oughr Lobe regrstered notof rbe rhirtt-day pcriod,lhc rime for-filingopposruon sheil be extendedfor an addirional rhinJ days.and tunher exlension!of limp for filine opposr(ron mav be srantedby the Directorfor good causewhcn requ.stedprior io rhe"expiratio-n an extensron."The of Dircdor shall notitv the aDDlicant ofaach exrension oflhe Limefor filins opposition. oppos-ii,on be amended Ar may under suchconditions as may be prescribedby the Director. SEc. 14. A petition to crncel a registration of a mark, stating Lhegroundsreliadupon.may. upon parm"nr ol Lhepre.cribed fee, be filed es follows anv Derson who believes by rhar he is or will be damssedl,includrns a iesult ofdrlutionunder secrion as 43.c.,1 by rhe resi"rrationof a mark on rhe pnncipal rcgistere"rablished by Ihis Acl, or under the Act ofMdrch 3, 1881, Ihe Act of February or 20, l9OS (A) fo. tJJhich constructiue the use date is after the date on uhich the petitioner's mark becane famous and. uhich uould. be Iikely to cause d.ilution by blurrine or dilution br tdrnishment under section4s(c), ot (B) on srcunds other than dilution br blur. ring or dilution by tanishmentl
TITLE II,THE
SIJPPLEMENTAI REGISTER
CANCEI,ATION
SEc. 24. Marks for the supplementalrcgister shall not be pub, Ii"h.d for or bc subject oppositron. .h;ll be publi.hedon regto but rsrrdtionin Ihe O{ficialCazerte (he Parenrand TrademarkOf ol fice. [whenever any peNoDbelievesthat h is or will be damased
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 11 of 12
by the registration of a mark on this register, including as a result of dilution under section 43(c),he may at any time, upon paymeni of the prescribed and the 6ljne of a pelrtionslating Ihe round fee registraiion.l-Wnpnthcrefor,apply to the Directortoiancel jo?r onr pA;.on belieues thot su.h pc$on"uch ulll be damaged by is or rcgisterthe rcgistntion of a mark on the supplemental ttt fot uhirh thc cllcdiuc lilins datp is aftet thp date on uhich suh Derson nark becamefanous and uhich woutd b? s likely to ca;se dilution br bluffini or dilution by tarnishnent under section 43(c), or e) on ground,sother than dilution by blurring or dilution br to,rnishment, such person ma! dt an! time, upon payment of the prcscribed fee and. the /iling of d petition statinE the ground thercfar,applr Io the Directot to cancel such resistrction. The Director shall refer such application to the Trademark Tnal and Appeal Board, which shall If sive nouce(hereofro [he regrstrent. it is found after a heanng belore Board whrch Lhat lhe regstranl is not enLitledlo reg. 'he istmtion, or that the mark has been abandoned,the rcgistration shall be canceld the Director. However,no ffnal judsrnent shall by be entered in favor of an applicant under section (1)(b) before the mark is resisrered,if such applicanLcannot prevail without establishingconstrucliv. usepusuanLIo seclion 7rc). TITLE VIII FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN. T'ALSE DESCRI PTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN (a) + * * sEc. 43. I(c)(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled. subiect to LheprincrpLes pquiiy 6nd upon such termsas the coun deems of rea"onable, an injunctionagains(anolherperson comm,rcidl uo s use in commerce a mark or trade name,if such use besinsafrFr of the mark hss becomefamous and causesdilurion of rhe distinctive quality of rhe mark, and to obtainsuch other relief es is provided in thjs subsection. deknninins whether a mark is diirrncLrve In and famous, a court may conside;factors such as, but not limited t(A) th desree of inherent or acquired distinctivnessof [(B) the duraiion and extent of use of the mark in connaction with the goodsor sewices with vhich the mark is used; t(C) the duraiion and extent of advertising and publicity oxrentof thp tradins area rn whrch , [, D, Lhegeographical rna marK Lsusedl I(E) the channels of trade for the soods or serices with which thP mark is uscd; t(F) the degreeof rcognition of the mark in the tradins arcas and channelsof trade used bv the ma*s' owner and the personagainst whom the injunction is sought; t(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; aDd
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233-2
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 12 of 12
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms