Worldwide: Trade Mark Infringement And Dilution As Causes Of Action: The US And UK Framework

Last Updated: 9 May 2014
Article by Christiana Aristidou

Trade marks are distinctive names, domain names, words, logos, slogans, phrases, symbols, images, colors, product designs, product packaging (trade dress) that manufactures or sellers affix to distinguish and identify the origin of their products. The owner of a trade mark has exclusive rights to use it or on the product it was intended to identify. Service marks receive the same legal protection as trade marks but are meant to distinguish services rather than products.


In the US, trade marks may be protected by both Federal Statute under the Lanham Act, (15 U.S.C 1051-1127) and States statutory and common laws. Under State common law, trade marks are protected as part of the Law of Unfair Competition. Registration is not required.

A trade mark infringement is an unauthorized use or reproduction of a trade mark that creates the likelihood of confusion in the mind of a consumer regarding the source of goods or services.

If the customer is found likely to believe that the trade mark infringer's goods or services are those of the person or entity who actually owns the trademark, damages may be awarded for the trademark infringement. In other words, the likelihood of confusion test seeks to answer the question of whether the junior user's use or reproduction of a trade mark creates a "likelihood of confusion" among consumers as to the source or association of the junior user's goods, such that infringes the senior user's rights.

Usually the following tests are used to determine likelihood of confusion and how they have been applied by the Courts:

  1. Strength of the mark1
  2. Similarity of the marks2
  3. Similarity of goods3
  4. Channels of trade4
  5. Consumer Sophistication5
  6. Wrongful Intent6
  7. Actual Confusion7
  8. Zone of Natural Expansion8

Where the marks, however, are similar and the products or services are also similar, it will be difficult to establish the "likelihood of confusion". In the case of AMF Inc., v. Sleekcraft Boats9, the plaintiffs owned the trade mark "Slickcraft" which they used to promote the selling of boats for general family recreation. They brought an action for trade mark infringement against the defendants who used the mark "Sleekcraft" in connection with the sale of high-speed performance boats. The Court thought that the products were indeed related but they were not identical; the two types of boats served substantially different markets. However, after applying many of the tests listed above, the court decided that the use of Sleekcraft was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

In UK the "likely of confusion" is an essential requirement for a finding of infringement under s.10 (2) of the Trade Mark Act. This includes a "likely of association also which was first introduced into UK trade mark law by The 1994 Act 10 Section 10(2) of the TMA provides that if an identical or similar sign is used in conjunction with identical or similar goods for which a mark is registered then there is infringement if there is a likelihood of public confusion. In cases falling under this section, judges apply a three part test. First consider the identity similarity of the mark with the sign; second, analyse the concept of similarity between the respective goods and services; and third, determine whether there was a likelihood of confusion because of that similarity. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that if a sign that is identical to a registered trade mark is used in the course of trade in connection with identical goods and services for which the mark is registered then there is infringement. This is a type of infringement that does not require proof of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. In Decon Laboratories Ltd., v. Fred Baker Scientific Ltd.,11 the claimant's registered trade mark was the word "Decon". The defendant sold identical products under a range of marks that included the word "Decon". This was held to infringe as the principal function of the suffixes was to describe the product and they did not distinguish the defendant's products from those of the claimant. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed in the UK if a similar or identical mark is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which it is registered, where the trade mark has a reputation and the use of the sign without due course takes fair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character of the trade mark. This section is actually focusing on dilution which will be discussed further in this essay.


On January 16, 1996, the Lanham Act was amended to provide for a trade mark dilution claim. Dilution is the "gradual whittling away or dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public mind of the mark or name."12 Or, is the use of a famous trademark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness."13 In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another's trademark on products or services that do not compete with. A trade mark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trade marks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source.14 Dilution differs from normal trademark infringement in that there is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion to protect a mark nor is there any need to show competition between the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant. Dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their distinctive quality or uniqueness in the public mind. A dilution claim can be brought only if the mark is "famous". The determination of what constitutes a "famous" mark will probably involve a great deal of litigation in the coming years. Under the terms of the Act, courts may look at the following factors in determining whether a mark is famous:

  1. The duration and extent of use of the mark,
  2. the duration and extent of advertising for the mark,
  3. the geographic area in which the mark has been used,
  4. the degree of distinctiveness of the mark (either through the nature of the mark itself, or through acquired distinctiveness),
  5. the degree of recognition of the mark,
  6. the method by which the product was distributed and marketed (the» channels of trade"),
  7. the use of the mark by third parties,
  8. Whether the mark was federally registered.

A mark may be diluted by either "blurring" or "tarnishment". Dilution through blurring occurs when a junior mark is used with goods or services different from those originally associated with the senior mark thus diminishing the distinguishing and identifying power of the senior mark. The case of Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen states that blurring "involves a whittling away' of the selling power and value of a trademark by unauthorized use of the mark."15 In this way the use of the junior mark diminishes the power of the famous mark to quickly call to mind and distinguish the goods or services associated with that mark. Dilution through tarnishment may occur when an accused junior mark is used on unwholesome or inferior goods or services that may create a negative association with the goods or services covered by the famous mark.16 A trademark may therefore be diluted through tarnishment on the internet which may occur by "linking"17 of a trademark to lesser quality products or unwholesome material.18 Indeed, by linking the mark to poor quality products the famous mark loses its established good will. In Toys "r" Us, Inc., v. Akkaoui,19 the defendant was enjoined from use of the web site because the selling of adult sexual products at the site was found to tarnish the plaintiff's famous mark.

As mentioned above, Section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, deals with dilution situations. In UK, again dilution occurs through blurring or tarnishment of the reputation of a well known or famous trademark. The Act is silent as to whether a likelihood of confusion is required to infringe under s. 10 (3). This form of infringement is limited to marks enjoying a reputation. According to Pumfrey J. In DaimlerChrysler AG v Javid Alavi (t/a MERC)20, the following requirements must be satisfied: (a) the claimant's trademark must be found to have a reputation in the UK, (b) identity with or similarity to the trade mark of repute must be shown, (3) the use of the sign complained of must take advantage of or cause detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the claimant's trade mark, (d) the use of the sign complained of must be without due cause. According to the Standing Committee on the Law of Trade Marks of the WIPO, the following information must be examined by Courts when deciding whether a mark is a well known or famous one:

  1. The degree of knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant sector of the public,
  2. the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark,
  3. the duration, extent and geographical are of any promotion of the mark, including advertising or publicity and the presentation, at fairs or exhibitions of the goods and/or services to which the mark applies,
  4. the duration and geographical area of any registrations and/or any applications for registration of the mark to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the mark,
  5. the record of successful enforcement of rights in the mark, in particular, the extent to which the mark was recognized as well known by courts or other competent authorities and
  6. the value associated with the mark.

Following a routine check on my trademark I found that it has been infringed; I discovered the existence of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar with my trademark. The infringing domain could very probably damage the goodwill and repute of my mark and cause me loss and damages. The first thing I can do is to send to the infringer a "cease and desist" letter stating that I have a trademark on which he is infringing and causes me damage and that he (the infringer) must immediately cease using my mark and not to use it in the future. Furthermore, I will ask him to transfer the domain to me and that if he fails to do that, that I will take all appropriate legal measures including claiming damages. I could enter a mark license agreement with the infringer but I don't want to take this option.

If the infringer continues infringing my trade mark even after my notice given to him within my cease and desist letter, I will have to think of my next step to take.

ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act can be used by trademark owners to stop infringing domain names and obtain "ownership" of the domain name.

If the domain name was one controlled by Nominet UK I could use Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service to have the registration cancelled or suspended or to ask the registration to be given to me to control haw the domain is used. The requirements of a valid complain under the Nominet DRS are:

  1. the complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the contested domain name,
  2. in the hands of the respondent, the domain name is an abusive registration, that is one which was registered or otherwise acquired or has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of, or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant's rights.

However, it seems that I will have to dispute the ownership of a .com generic top level domain name. Therefore, I should use the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The system is not operated by Nominet. It is, however, quite similar to that.

Therefore, if I choose to use the ICCAN's UDRP, the following requirements must be established for me to succeed in my claim:

  1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to my trademark in which I have rights,
  2. The respondent holder has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the domain name and
  3. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It will not be difficult to establish the first requirement as I consider the domain name is identical to my trademark. In this case I will not have to prove a "likely of confusion". If the UDRP follows UK's position, then the first requirement determines whether I have a legitimate interest. So, it seems highly possible that the second requirement will also be established. Establishing the last requirement seems in my case to be more difficult. Indeed the policy is intended to catch respondents who have registered domain names primarily with a view to selling them to complainants. I will try to bring that information that are relevant to establish the respondent's intention to sell the domain. I will discuss this with my lawyer who will help me to decide.

I could, of course, follow the court route and sue the infringer for trademark infringement and/or dilution. However, DRP tent to be cheaper than court proceedings. On the other hand if I choose to sue him at Court I will not have to prove bad faith from his part. If the infringement was not limited to the domain, I would definitely have to follow the court procedure and ask for an immediate injunction. In such case I would also have the chance to recover costs and damages.


1 See America OnLine Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 64 F.Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Va. 1999), affirmed in part and vacated in part, 243 F. 3d 812(4th Cir. 2001)

2 see TCPIP Holding Co., Inc v. Haar Communications, inc., 244 F 3d 88, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2001) and BigStar Entertainment, Inc v. Next Big Star, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 185, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

3 see Network Network v. CBS, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1150 ( C.D. Cal. 2000)

4 see Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research , Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1042-43 ( N.D. Ill. 2001)

5 see BigStar Entertainment, Inc., ibid f.3

6 see TCPIP Holding Co, Inc., ibid f. 2, Eli Lilly & Co v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F. 3d 456, 465 ( 7th Cir. 2000) and N.Y. State Society of Certified Public Accountants v. Eric Louis Assoc., Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 331, 341-42, 348-52 ( S.D.N.Y. 1999)

7 see Network Network, v. CBS., Inc., ibid f.3

8 see BigStar Entertainment., Inc., ibid f. 3

9 599 F. 2d 341 (9th Cir 1979)

10 see David Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, 5th ed. 602 also see Wagamama Ltd., v. City Center Restaurants plc. [1995]FSR 713

11 [2001] RPC 293

12 see Frank I. Schechter, the Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 Harv. L.Rev. 813,821-26, 830-32 (1927)

13 see

14 ibid

15 see Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296, 1304, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1908, 1914 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

16 see Deere & Co. v. MTD Productions, Inc., 41 F. 3d 39, 44, 32 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1936, 1939 (2d Cir. 1994).

17 Linking involves establishing a connection to another site on a company's web page to immediately transfer the consumer to the other location.

18 See Elizabeth Robinson Martin, "Too famous to live long" The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Sets Its Sights To Eliminate Cybersquatter Opportunistic Claims On Domain Names, 31 St. Mary's L.J. 815 1999-2000

19 40. U.S.P.Q. 2d 1836 (N. D. Cal. 1996),

20 [2001]RPC 813

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions