|
The Way Forward
Gradual recognition of the “power of the brand” in commercial industry strengthens the importance of dilution criteria in well-known mark’s protection. More often than not, well-known marks are owned by transnational companies in the expanding fields of international commerce. Well-known mark owners do business in diverse corners of the world, understandably, they have reasonable expectations of enjoying wider and similar standards of well-known mark’s protection in most countries. In this regard, it is important to develop a relatively unified international standard of well-known mark protection, so that manufacturers and producers of new products can participate in the global marketplace without fearing uncertain protection of their valuable well-known marks in different legal jurisdictions. Furthermore, what should not be lost sight of by each country is that, appropriate protection for well-known marks could serve as a vehicle for attracting foreign investment to its country. Well-structured trademark law represents positive initial steps in the establishment of better conditions for investment and business.
Well-known mark’s dilution criteria have attracted increasing attention in the international environment, however, they still remain in their earliest stages of development. International treaties on well-known mark’s anti-dilution protection are yet insufficient. To establish international unified standards of well-known mark’s protection against dilution, many challenges still lie ahead. Firstly, national laws in this area are in flux, the objective of trademark dilution law in one country may change over time. Take the United States such a leading country for anti-dilution as an example, the 1946 Lanham Act of the U.S. intends to protect consumers’ interests, while the 1995 Federal Trademark Dilution Act shifts to favor the trademark holders’ interests. What is more obvious is the 2006 Revision Act, which facilitates the effective protection of trademark holders’ rights. One potential reason for this change perhaps results from the difficulty to prove the complicated “dilution” element. Secondly, considering the disparity of economic development between developed and developing countries, it is reasonable for developing countries to regulate less rigidly in the context of anti-dilution, because they have only reached the level of protecting consumers’ interests rather than favoring multinational companies’ interests. Thirdly, the difference of each country’ attitude and position in the context of well-known mark’s anti-dilution is a barrier for building up unified international standards. Different standpoints towards trademark dilution phenomenon not only exist between developed and developing countries, but also among developed countries, like the U.S. and EU members. It seems that a widening gap in anti-dilution laws between the US and EU has been forming. On the one hand, the U.S. provides a much broader arena for well-known mark’s anti-dilution protection; On the other hand, EU tends to maintain the “actual dilution” standard to protect well-known marks.
While international unification of law in anti-dilution area is significantly needed, it is difficult to achieve such a goal in a short period of time. In an era of increasing globalization, in consideration of international trade collaborations, it is essential to reach workable resolutions to national differences in treating well-known mark’s protection, as the world business community strives towards seamless and efficient international interactions. The increasing globalization of business brings with it a greater need for harmonization of trademark law and policy. Also it is unambiguously true that harmonization is the preferable alternative and solution to deal with conflicts of interests among countries. The European Directive is an example which achieves simplicity by harmonizing statutory anti-dilution law among the European nations. Though there inevitably are some variations in interpretations of the Directive among EU nations, with more ECJ decisions rendered, those variations will hopefully be reduced.
|
