[The Trademark Dilution bill](http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/tmdilution) is unfortunately set for passage on the floor schedule (it's [currently number 27](http://majoritywhip.house.gov/whippost.asp)).
Trademark is an interesting animal in the intellectual property kingdom: Instead of being used as a limited monopoly to promote the sciences and useful arts, trademark can be a *perpetual* monopoly used to help consumers identify goods and services. A more recent flavor of trademark that cuts against its general consumer-protectiveness is dilution. Traditional trademark is changed by asking if the use of a mark, even in non-competitive markets, causes the mark to lose its association with a singular source or company, regardless of consumer confusion. Thankfully the US Supreme Court has [up-to-now interpreted dilution narrowly](http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/tmdilution), by saying the trademark holder has to show that actual dilution has occurred.
You may recall that this bill makes it much easier for trademark holders to receive court injunctions against another who's use of a mark is:
> "likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
If you think it sounds like a rather weak standard, you're probably right. Even worse, originally, limitations like fair use didn't apply. We worked with folks like the [Public Citizen](http://www.citizen.org/), [ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/), and [the EFF](http://www.eff.org) and with a little help from *McDreamy* ((http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mcdreamy),(http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/tm-dilution-examples.pdf)(PDF)), an exclusions provision to allow for fair and non-commercial uses, was added to the bill.
Great, so the problem was fixed, right? We wish...