President Signs Changes To Trademark Dilution Law
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.12.06
President Bush signs the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (“Act”), amending the Lanham Act in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc ., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), which held that a dilution plaintiff must show actual dilution of its mark.
The Act lowers the standard set out in Moseley and provides that a plaintiff only needs to show a likelihood of dilution to sustain a claim. It specifically provides for relief from both dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment.
The new law also addresses a conflict among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a mark can be famous among a defined segment of the population, known as “niche market fame.” “Niche market” fame in a limited market appears to be disqualified by the Act's language that “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.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
