William F. Smith: “Mr. Speaker, trademark law is relevant to the life of every consumer in America. Trademarks give consumers assurance…”

“Mr. Speaker, trademark law is relevant to the life of every consumer in America. Trademarks give consumers assurance that the goods or services they are buying are the product that the trademark represents. If a customer has purchased items in the past from a specific company that bears a specific mark or logo, the customer has an impression of that company and the goods or services it produces. So trademark law empowers consumers by giving them information that is often critical to their purchasing decisions. Dilution alters the public perception of a trademarked product or service by diminishing its uniqueness over time. The idea of protecting famous trademarks from dilution surfaced in the 1920s. Since then, roughly half of the States have enacted dilution statutes, and Congress passed the Federal Trade Dilution Act nearly a decade ago. As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, the Federal dilution statute is being amended for two main reasons: first, a 2003 Supreme Court decision involving Victoria's Secret ruled that the standard of harm in dilution cases is actual harm. Based on testimony taken at our two hearings, this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution statute and is at odds with the concept itself of dilution. Diluting needs to be stopped at the outset.”