Traditional theory limits the protection of trademark rights to the scope of registered goods or services, while trademark dilution is the use of an identical or similar trademark to others for different or dissimilar goods or services. This It is obviously beyond the scope of protection of traditional trademark rights, so traditional trademark rights theory cannot fully protect the interests of trademark owners. The phenomenon of trademark dilution first appeared in Germany. Germany In 1923, a German district court banned sock manufacturers from using the "4711" perfume trademark in a ruling. A year later, another local court issued a ruling prohibiting the knife and scissors industry from using the "ODOL" toothpaste trademark. These two local court cases that expanded the scope of trademark protection from identical or similar goods to dissimilar goods were later confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court. German scholars call this legislative basis for expanded protection of well-known trademarks "the risk of diluting the attractiveness of trademarks." This is where the dilution theory was born.

Since then, German courts have continuously cited the trademark dilution theory in their judgments. For example, in the "Dimple" case, the Federal German Court prohibited the defendant from using "Dimple" and "Chivas", two high-quality and high-priced whiskey brands, to promote its cosmetics. In its judgment, the German Federal Supreme Court described this kind of trademark dilution behavior as: "Any highly famous trademark, due to the fact that it is attractive and represents the commercial value of the enterprise, therefore the infringement of such trademark shall not be infringed regardless of its Whether used on similar or completely different goods, if the infringement has damaged the trademark and its attractiveness, it will be considered to have harmed the enterprise itself. "The theoretical basis is expressed as: "The reason for providing such anti-dilution protection. , because the owner of the distinctive trademark has every legitimate reason to continue to maintain the unique status that he has spent a lot of time and money to achieve, and anything that may endanger the originality and distinctiveness of his trademark, as well as the resulting advertising effect All acts should be prohibited. The purpose of protection is not to avoid any form of confusion, but to protect accumulated assets from infringement." In 1927, American scholar Frank Schexhter wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review. , wrote: "The trademark owner should not only prohibit others from using his trademark on competing goods, but also prohibit the use of his trademark on non-competitive goods." Other scholars in the United States further discussed this issue and The theory of trademark dilution has gradually matured. Thomas, chairman of the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar Association. E. Smith (Thomas.E.Smith) pointed out: "If the court allows or indulges the 'Rolls-Royce' restaurant, 'Rolls-Royce' cafeteria, 'Rolls-Royce' pants, 'Rolls-Royce' candy If it exists, then within ten years, the owner of the 'Rolls-Royce' trademark will no longer own this world-famous trademark. "Many scholars also believe that well-known trademarks have a huge reputation. Any improper use may dilute, weaken or even tarnish the recognition and distinctiveness of the trademark, damage the goodwill carried by the trademark, and cause heavy losses to the trademark owner. In the 1930s, the U.S. Congress tried to legislate on trademark dilution to prohibit infringement that might damage the credibility, reputation and business credit of prior users, but it ultimately failed to pass. Section 43 of the U.S. Trademark Act of 1945 (the Lanham Act) provides for trademark dilution. In 1947, Massachusetts was the first state to enact a trademark anti-dilution law. Since then, states have enacted their own trademark anti-dilution laws. So far, more than half of the states have enacted their own trademark dilution laws. In early 1996, the Federal Trademark Anti-Dilination Act enacted by the U.S. Congress came into effect, marking the final establishment of the trademark dilution theory in the United States.

After the trademark dilution theory was proposed in the United States, it quickly spread to other countries, and some international treaties also absorbed this theory. For example, Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967 Stockholm Act) specifically stipulates the issue of trademark dilution. The TRIPS agreement reached by the WTO in 1994 and the Model Provisions on Protection against Unfair Competition formulated by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 1996 have all absorbed the trademark dilution theory.

Continental law countries also attach great importance to the research and legislation of trademark dilution theory. The 1991 French Intellectual Property Code and the 1994 German Trademark Law all have relevant provisions.