Abstract
This Note examines the split in jurisprudence among several federal appeals courts over the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Some circuits require proof of actual consummated economic harm before they will enjoin the diluting conduct under the statute, while other circuits merely require a showing of a likelihood of economic harm. This Note performs a historical analysis of the dilution doctrine and analyzes the rationale of the various federal appeals courts. After critiquing several arguments, Enright concludes that the harm the Act seeks to prevent precludes a requirement of proof of actual consummated economic harm before an injunction can be granted.
Recommended Citation
Jeffrey Enright,
Slow Death of a Salesman: The Watering Down of Dilution Viability by Demanding Proof of Actual Economic Loss,
77
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
937
(2002).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol77/iss2/12
