(A) the object of dilution is the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks
In today's attention economy era, well-known trademarks have become the main target of illegal enterprises. FTDA stipulates that the object of dilution is the source and distinctiveness of well-known trademarks; The trademark dilution amendment in 2006 limited the object of dilution to the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks, excluding the influence on the source to distinguish it from confusion. Some States in the United States have relaxed the requirements for diluents. They think that the object to be diluted is not necessarily a well-known or famous trademark, but a prominent trademark.
(2) 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 category of dilution. Secondly, the harm of using similar trademarks for competitive goods or services is mainly to confuse the sources of goods or services and use the goodwill of others to expand the sales of their own goods or services.
(3) The dilution method is mainly similar signs, supplemented by the same signs.
The trademark symbols used in dilution are sometimes exactly the same as the original well-known trademark, sometimes partially the same, but in most cases they are similar. Compared with the past, the infringer is superior in means, and most of them use the logo closest to the original trademark to imply or stimulate the association of the audience or mistake it for a well-known trademark to carry out related infringement.
The proof of dilution is quite difficult.
There are three main reasons: first, seawater desalination is a gradual process, which is hidden and long, and it is quite difficult to prove whether seawater desalination exists or not. Second, it is proved that diluting demand is helpful to experts and consumers, but it cannot cover all experts and consumers. Therefore, the relevant evidence is often weak, unconvincing and difficult to prove. Thirdly, 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 loss would make the effective claim given by the federal dilution law encounter unreasonable obstacles.