This passage is based on material from an article published in 2006.
The U.S. Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA) was supposed to have expanded the scope of dilution-based trademark protection—the protection of trademark owners from actions that lessen the distinctiveness of trademarks. It broadened the scope of protected trademarks, allowed fewer types of use of trademarks by nonowners (fair-use exemptions), and reduced the burden of proof in cases of trademark infringement. Under its provisions, the owner of an obscure trademark could prevent its use in noncommercial speech without having to prove actual harm.
In practice, the FTDA produced court decisions which significantly narrowed dilution-based trademark protection. This is because many judges found the statute, particularly its incursion into noncommercial speech, to be poor public policy (if not a violation of the U.S. Constitution); they took advantage of the statute's ambiguous language to constrain its effects. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) was passed in response.
The likely impact of the TDRA should be assessed in light of the judicial backlash against the FTPA. The TDRA is more conservative: it narrows the class of potential trademarks eligible for protection and restores pre-FTDA fair-use exemptions. Many of the cases brought under the FTDA would be filtered out by the TDRA. But because judges will follow its provisions, the new law will result in court rulings more favorable for trademark owners.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. discuss the development of U.S. trademark-dilution law from 1995 to 2006
B. trace the evolution of judicial responses to legislation pertaining to trademarks
C. explain the weaknesses of trademark statutes from 1995 to 2006
D. highlight the key provisions of the TDRA
E. examine judicial responses to ambiguous trademark legislation
Answer: A,