Talk:Trademark dilution

Depreciation of goodwill/dilution in trademark law was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Trademark dilution. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

On 24 September 2008, Trademark dilution was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Untitled[edit]

It's silly that the dilution page refers to trademark dilution and not chemical dilution. If someone asked you to imagine dilution, your first thought would not involve trademarks.

LegCircus 05:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Trademark dilution per above comment (with which I agree).Bryan 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be something about Google's recent fuss about "Google" being included as a verb in the dictionary, and the ad they placed. (I'm not really familiar with the story, or I'd do it). Jeremymiles 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Wait until the Cisco v. Apple action (iPhone)comes down the line (assuming there's no agreement). The lower-case "i" Apple uses could be a blessing or a handicap. Ttlr113 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPods[edit]

So when I'm listening to my mp3 player and my mother tells me to put my iPod away (which I don't own an iPod)... Is that an example of trademark dilution?

Yes. This isn't the best place to ask that, however. Try the Reference Desk — trlkly 10:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the public using a trademark as a generic term; "iPod" to mean all portable mp3 players just as "elevator" now means all verticle building lifts rather than just those manufactured by the Otis Company. If the other mp3 manufacturer itself called its product an iPod, that would be simple trademark infringement. If iPod were a sufficiently famous mark to qualify for dilution protection and a clothier came out with a line of iPod t-shirts, that would constitute dilution protection. Dilution only applies where the products are not actually in competition. Postdlf (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re: "giv[ing] ... authority"[edit]

Trademark dilution does not itself give trademark owners the authority to sue on the grounds of infringement. Rather, trademark dilution is a form of damage a) whose sufferance gives a trademark owner standing to sue and b) whose recognition under law (i.e., the legal theory of trademark dilution) enables an injured party to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

165.176.7.3 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Dilution (usually by a parent company)[edit]

I was directed to this page from the Saab 900 page. It was discussing Brand Dilution under GM felt by many Saab enthusiasts to take the character away from the vehicles. This is obviously not the same as, for example, someone selling a car as a 'Sab'. Should there be a page for Brand Dilution? In which a parent company significantly changes or stretches a brand beyond it's original characteristics. This may be either to cut costs, remain competitive (as an alternative to winding down the marque) or to branch out into new markets. For example: - Saab from the NG900 era onwards (the NG900 which used an Opel Vectra platform) - Citroen from the Peugeot era onwards (which use Peugeot platforms and less reliance on hydropneumatics for suspension and braking) - Mini under BMW (the 60s onwards original was a city car. The BMW range now includes an SUV) - Jaguar under Ford (some concern from enthusiasts as the S-type used a Lincoln platform and the X-type used a Mondeo platform with diesel engines and an estate car) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.202.217 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charbucks - questionable conclusions.[edit]

I'm not impressed with the Charbucks case concessionary statement. The source is a 2010 writing from the website of the law firm of one of the litigants while litigation was underway, so I don't think it's a reliable source. The case seems to have closed in 2013 per http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-starbucks-charbucks-lawsuit-idUSBRE9AE0Z120131115, with sales of Charbucks allowed to continue because it's "only weakly associated with the minimally similar" Starbucks trademark. Anyone involved with this article willing to give a stab at improving this section? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]