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 | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
