trademark dilution theory originates from trademark confusion theory, that is, dilution theory is based on confusion theory and supported, supplemented or strengthened by confusion theory, and dilution theory and confusion theory are not completely either-or in application. However, compared with trademark confusion, trademark dilution has its own distinctive features, mainly including:

(1) the salience of diluting the well-known trademarks

"In today's attention economy era, well-known trademarks have become the main targets coveted by illegal enterprises". FTDA stipulates that the object of dilution is the origin and distinctiveness of well-known trademarks; The Trademark Dilution Amendment in 26 limited the object of dilution to the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks, excluding the influence on the source, so as to distinguish it from confusion. Some states in the United States have relaxed requirements for diluted objects. They think that the diluted objects are not necessarily well-known or famous trademarks, but prominent trademarks.

(II) The scope of dilution is non-competitive goods or services

First of all, the non-commercial use of well-known trademarks does not belong to the scope of dilution. Secondly, the harm of using similar trademarks for competitive goods or services is mainly to confuse the source of goods or services and use the goodwill of others to expand the sales of their own products or services

(3) The means of dilution are mainly similar marks, supplemented by the same marks

The trademark marks used for dilution are sometimes exactly the same as the original well-known trademarks, and sometimes they are partially the same, but in most cases they are similar. Compared with the past, infringers are superior in means, and most of them use the logo closest to the original trademark to imply or stimulate the audience's association or mistakenly think that it is a well-known trademark to carry out related infringement.

(4) It is quite difficult to prove desalination

There are three main reasons: First, desalination is a gradual process, hidden and long, so it is quite difficult to prove whether there is desalination or the severity of desalination. Second, it is proved that diluting demand helps experts and consumers, but it can't cover all experts and consumers. Therefore, the relevant evidence is often weak and unconvincing, and it is difficult to prove. Third, the dilution of judgment depends on the judge's free evaluation of evidence based on his own social experience and life experience, and the possibility of inconsistent judgment results increases. This is exactly what the Sixth Circuit Court of the United States was worried about when hearing Mosley's appeal: the requirement to prove the actual economic damage will make the effective claim given by the federal dilution law encounter unreasonable obstacles.

(Zhuo Yi Intellectual Property)