To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to correct an error in the provisions relating to remedies for dilution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6215) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to correct an error in the provisions relating to remedies for dilution, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6215, as amended, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is to protect famous trademarks from uses that blur the distinctiveness of the trademark or tarnish or disparage it. Dilution does not rely upon the standard test of infringement, that is, likelihood of confusion, deception, or mistake. Rather, it applies when the unauthorized use of a famous trademark reduces the public's perception that the trademark signifies something unique, singular, or particular.

Dilution can result in the loss of the trademark's distinctiveness and possibly the owner's rights in it.

Congress enacted amendments to the original dilution statute in 2006. Last year, two law professors discovered a technical problem with one of the 2006 changes.

During Senate consideration of the House bill, the section that provides a Federal registration defense to a dilution action was reorganized. This produced an unexpected and unintended change to the law.

As originally drafted in the House, the provision was designed to encourage Federal registration of trademarks. This is a worthy policy goal that prevents State laws from interfering with federally protected trademarks and ensures that registered trademarks are protected nationwide.

The House version promoted this goal and barred a State action for dilution against a federally registered trademark. However, the Senate reformatted the House text in such a way as to create a bar against State action for dilution as well as a State or Federal action based on a claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. This means the Federal registration defense is available to both State sand Federal dilution claims.

Congress did not intend such an outcome. If all dilution claims, including Federal claims, are barred by registration, it becomes difficult to cancel a diluting trademark that is registered. This encourages illegitimate trademark holders to register diluting trademarks, which forces legitimate trademark holders to expend greater resources to monitor registrations, as well as other trademarks being used in commerce. That is why I introduced H.R. 6215 to amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.

This bill simply reformats the affected provision to clarify that Federal registration only constitutes a complete bar to a State claim based on dilution, or actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. The change applies prospectively.

This bill ensures that the trademark community is protected from those who seek to use this loophole as a way to disparage legitimate trademarks and cost their owners time and money.

The only change to the bill, as reported, is a technical correction to a boilerplate reference regarding the date of enactment of the Trademark Act of 1946. The reported version inaccurately identifies the date of enactment as July 6, 1946. The correct date is July 5, 1946.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6214, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6215, which is necessary to correct a technical error in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 that inadvertently allowed the registration of a Federal trademark to be a complete bar to Federal trademark dilution claims.

The concept of dilution was initially a creature of State law. Massachusetts was the first State to enact a dilution statute in 1947. The purpose of the dilution law is to protect the value and uniqueness of the plaintiff's trademark without requiring evidence about the likelihood of confusion.

Over 50 years after the passage of the Massachusetts statute, the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act provided nationwide injunctive relief ``against a use that causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark.'' In

2003, however, the Supreme Court in Moseley v. Victoria's Secret Catalog, Inc., considered the question of whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark--that is, actual dilution--is required to obtain relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The Court decided that evidence of actual dilution was required, not simply a showing of likely dilution.

The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 amended the law in an attempt to reverse the Victoria's Secret decision and to expand the scope of State dilution claims banned under the Federal statute. During consideration of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, however, the provision allowing a Federal registration defense to dilution claims brought under State law was reorganized in such a way as to result in an unintended substantive change in the provision. As a result, the Federal registration defense is available not only against State dilution claims, but also against Federal dilution claims.

The legislative history makes clear that Congress did not intend to allow a Federal trademark registration to bar a Federal dilution claim. H.R. 6215 corrects this error and has broad support in the intellectual property community and bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that ensures that the will of the Congress, as originally intended, is not undermined by an inadvertent drafting error.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6215, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I know of no further debate on this measure.

I ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.