A. The impairment of a famous trademark's strength, effectiveness, or distinctiveness through use of the mark on an unrelated product.
Listen to pronunciationLegal Definition -
The impairment of a famous trademark's strength, effectiveness, or distinctiveness through use of the mark on an unrelated product, usually blurring the trademark's distinctive character or tarnishing it with an unsavory association. -- Trademark dilution may occur even when the use is not competitive and when creates no likelihood of confusion. The elements of trademark dilution are (1) ownership of a famous mark and (2) actual dilution. But plaintiff does not have to prove actual loss of sales or profits.
Black's Law Dictionary® Eighth Edition © 2004
Current Usage -
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., a French corporation located in Paris,
that manufactures luxury luggage, handbags, and accessories, commenced this action against Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, a Nevada corporation that manufactures and sells pet products nationally, alleging trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and related statutory and common law violations. Haute Diggity Dog manufactures, among other things, plush toys on which dogs can chew, which, it claims, parody famous trademarks on luxury products, including those of Louis Vuitton Malletier. The particular Haute Diggity Dog chew toys in question here are small imitations of handbags that are labeled "Chewy Vuiton" and that mimic Louis Vuitton Malletier’s LOUIS VUITTON handbags. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Haute Diggity Dog’s "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys were successful parodies of Louis Vuitton Malletier’s trademarks, designs, and products, and on that basis, entered judgment in favor of Haute Diggity Dog on all of Louis Vuitton Malletier’s claims. On appeal, we agree with the district court that Haute Diggity Dog’s products are not likely to cause confusion with those of Louis Vuitton Malletier and that Louis Vuitton Malletier’s copyright was not infringed. On the trademark dilution claim, however, we reject the district court’s reasoning but reach the same conclusion through a different analysis. Judge Niemeyer, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, November 13, 2007.