Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trademark dilution and the practice of marketing

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article considers the marketing implications of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) of 1995. The FTDA, an amendment to the Lanham Act, will influence the manner in which marketing is practiced well into the twenty-first century. Although the FTDA is specifically concerned with protecting famous trademarks from being diluted—either by having their distinctiveness diminished or positive associations tarnished—by similar trademarks, its influence will not be limited to trademark or branding issues. Implications range from the allocation of advertising resources to the increased use of marketing research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, David A. 1996.Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, Manoj K. and Vithala R. Rao. 1996. “An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based Measures of Brand Equity.”Marketing Letters 7 (July): 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, John R. 1983.The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney and Co., 247 F. 407 (Ca. 2nd Cir. 1917).

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1982. “Context-independent and Context-dependent Information in Concepts.”Memory and Cognition 10 (January): 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1983. “Ad Hoc Categories.”Memory and Cognition 11 (May): 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender, David M., Peter H. Farquhar, and Sanford C. Schulert. 1996. “Growing From the Top.”Marketing Management 4 (Winter/Spring): 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Peter D., ed. 1995.Dictionary of Marketing Terms. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, Sanjai and U. N. Umesh. 1997. “Do Trademark Infringement Lawsuits Affect Brand Value: A Stock Market Perspective.”Journal of Market Focused Management 2 (2): 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, Leo and Charles Lehman. 1973. “What Makes a Brand Name Familiar?”Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February): 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borden, Neil H. 1946. “Advertising Branded Parts to Consumers.”Harvard Business Review 25 (Autumn): 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boush, David M. 1997. “Brand Name Effects on Interproduct Similarity Judgments.”Marketing Letters 8 (October): 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto. 1989. “Consumer Preference Formation and the Pioneering Advantage.”Journal of Marketing Research 26 (August): 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Dorothy. 1986. “Trademark Strategy. “Journal of Marketing 50 (January): 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1975. “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. “Psychological Review 82 (November): 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, Jennifer. 1984. “A Schematic Approach to Changing Consumers’ Beliefs.” InAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11. Ed. T. C. Kinnear. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 472–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, Sidney A. 1975. “The Historical Development of Trademarks.”The Trademark Reporter 65 (July–August): 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drescher, Thomas D. 1992. “The Transformation and Evolution of Trademarks—From Signals to Symbols to Myth.”The Trademark Reporter 82 (May–June): 301–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffey, Gregg. 1997. “Trademark Dilution Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995: You’ve Come a Long Way Baby—Too Far, Maybe?”South Texas Law Review 39 (December): 133–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman Photographic Material Co. v. John Griffith Corp., 15 RPC 105 (1898).

  • Eachambadi, Naras V. 1994. “Does Advertising Work?”The McKinsey Quarterly (3): 117–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, Peter H. 1989. “Managing Brand Equity.”Marketing Research 1 (September): 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Yuji Ijiri. 1993. “A Dialogue on Momentum Accounting for Brand Management.”International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (March): 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Julia Y. Han, Paul M. Herr, and Yuji Ijiri. 1992. “Strategies for Leveraging Master Brands.”Marketing Research 4 (September): 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-98, H.R. 1295.

  • Feldwick, Paul. 1996. “What Is Brand Equity Anyway, and How Do You Measure It?”Journal of the Market Research Society 38 (April): 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellman, Michelle Wirth. 1998. “Why Marketers Spend Millions Even After There’s Buzz.”Marketing News 32 (August 31): 1, 8, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiwe, Nancy S. 1982. “Antidilution Statutes: A New Attack on Comparative Advertising.”The Trademark Reporter 72 (March–April): 178–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler, Milton. 1985. “Are the State Antidilution Laws Compatible With the National Protection of Trademarks?”The Trademark Reporter 75 (May–June): 269–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, Steve. 1997. “Brand Equity Impairment—The Meaning of Dilution.”The Trademark Reporter 87 (July–August): 418–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemnes, Thomas M. S. 1985. “How Can You Find a Safe Trademark?”Harvard Business Review 63 (March–April): 36–37, 40, 42, 44, 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, Paul M., Peter H. Farquhar, and Russell H. Fazio. 1996. “Impact of Dominance and Relatedness on Brand Extensions.”Journal of Consumer Psychology 5 (2): 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans, and Benedict, 198 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1905).

  • Joachimsthaler, Erich and David A. Aaker. 1997. “Building Brands Without Mass Media.”Harvard Business Review 75 (January–February): 39–41, 44–46, 48–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, Deborah Roedder, Barbara Loken, and Christopher Joiner. 1998. “The Negative Impact of Extensions. Can Flagship Products Be Diluted?”Journal of Marketing 62 (January): 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.”Journal of Marketing 57 (January): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, David M. and John R. Thomas. 1997. “Names on the Net: Some Strategies for Protecting What They’re Worth to Your Client.”The Practical Lawyer 43 (March): 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, Chiranjeev and Douglas W. LaBahn. 1997. “Creating Effective Brand Names: A Study of the Naming Process.”Journal of Advertising Research 37 (January–February): 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafte-Jacobs, Lori. 1998. “Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995.”University of Cincinnati Law Review 66 (Winter): 659–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. and Jaishankar Ganesh. 1995. “State-of-the-Art in Brand Equity Research: What We Know and What Needs to be Known.”Australasian Journal of Market Research 3 (January): 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, William M. and Richard A. Posner. 1987. “Trademark Law: An Economic Perspective.”Journal of Law and Economics 30 (October): 265–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, Vicki and Robert Jacobson. 1997. “The Reciprocal Impact of Brand Leveraging: Feedback Effects From Brand Extension Evaluation to Brand Evaluation.”Marketing Letters 8 (July): 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Sidney J. and Dennis W. Rook. 1981. “Brands, Trademarks, and the Law.” InReview of Marketing 1981. Eds. B. M. Enis and K. J. Roering. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John. 1993. “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing 57 (July): 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and James Ward. 1990. “Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. Thomas. 1996.McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. 4th ed. New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, B. J. III. 1988. “Trademark Dilution: Its Development, Japan’s Experience, and the New USTA Federal Proposal.”George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics 22 (Winter): 417–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miaoulis, George and Nancy D’Amato. 1978. “Consumer Confusion and Trademark Infringement.”Journal of Marketing 42 (April): 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Fred W. 1990. “Judicial Standards for Survey Research: An Update and Guidelines.”Journal of Marketing 54 (January): 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskin, Jonathan E. 1996. “Dilution Act: Patent Medicine for Trademark Ailment?”New York Law Journal 215 (March 8): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Kimberly L. 1993. “Dilution Law: At a Crossroad? A Position of Advocacy in Support of Adoption of a Preemptive Federal Antidilution Statute.”The Trademark Reporter 83 (March–April): 173–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Chan Su and V. Srinivasan. 1994. “A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May): 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattishall, Beverly W. 1984. “Dawning Acceptance of the Dilution Rationale for Trademark-Trade Identity Protection.”The Trademark Reporter 74 (July–August): 289–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Robert A. and Ivan Ross. 1972. “How to Name New Brands.”Journal of Adverting Research 6 (December): 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Sridhar Balasubramanian, and Bart Bronnenberg. 1997. “Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Fall): 329–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, Malla. 1996. “Time to Dilute the Dilution Statute and What Not to Do When Opposing Legislation.”Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 78 (August): 518–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petsky, Maxine Lans. 1998. “Famous Marks Have Legal Protection Against Poachers.”Marketing News 32 (November 9): 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” InCognition and Categorization. Eds. E. Rosch and B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, Frank L. 1927. “The Rational Basis for Trademark Protection.”Harvard Law Review 40 (June): 813–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serad, Susan L. 1997. “One Year After Dilution’s Entry Into Federal Trademark Law.”Wake Forest Law Review 32 (Spring): 215–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Carol J. and Mary W. Sullivan. 1993. “The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach.”Marketing Science 12 (Winter): 28–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, Alexander F. 1995. “How and When Do Trademarks Dilute: A Behavioral Framework to Judge ‘Likelihood’ of Dilution.”The Trademark Reporter 83 (March–April): 149–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Michael R. 1999.Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, Rajenda K. and Allan D. Shocker. 1991. “Brand Equity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and Measurement.” Working Paper No. 91-124, Marketing Science Institute, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, Jerre B. and Theodore H. Davis Jr. 1994. “Dilution, an Idea Whose Time Has Gone; Brand Equity as Protectable Property, the New/Old Paradigm.”The Trademark Reporter 84 (May–June): 267–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, Danielle Weinberg. 1998. “The Limitations of Trademark Law in Addressing Domain Name Disputes.”UCLA Law Review 45 (June): 1487–1521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teas, R. Kenneth and Terry H. Grapentine. 1996. “Demystifying Brand Equity.”Marketing Research 8 (Summer): 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos. 1977. “Features of Similarity.”Psychological Review 84 (4): 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News 1995. 1996. Vol. 1. St. Paul, MN: West, 985–987.

  • Welkowitz, David S. 1991. “Reexamining Trademark Dilution.”Vanderbilt University Law Review 44 (April): 531–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson, 26 F.2d 972, 974 (Ca. 2 1928).

  • Zinkhan, George M. and Claude R. Martin. 1987. “New Brand Names and Inferential Beliefs: Some Insights on Naming New Products.”Journal of Business Research 15 (April): 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

    Robert A. Peterson & Philip C. Zerrillo

  2. Southwest Texas State University, Texas, USA

    Karen H. Smith

Authors
  1. Robert A. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen H. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip C. Zerrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Robert A. Peterson holds the John T. Stuart III Centennial Chair in Business Administration and the Charles E. Hurwitz Fellowship, both at The University of Texas at Austin. His Ph.D. is from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Peterson’s publications have appeared in such journals as theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, andMarketing Science. His research interests range from Internet marketing to research methodology to marketing strategy. He presently serves on the boards of several for-profit and not-for-profit organizations as well as an advisory committee to the Bureau of the Census.

Karen H. Smith is an assistant professor at Southwest Texas State University. Her Ph.D. is from The University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Smith’s research interests include consumer information processing, consumer knowledge structures (schemata), dilution of brand equity, and adolescent smoking. Her research has been published in theJournal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Education, andAdvances in Consumer Research.

Philip C. Zerrillo is executive MBA director at The University of Texas at Austin. His Ph.D. is from Northwestern University. Dr. Zerrillo’s research interests have focused on broad-based business innovation, strategic development of distribution channel arrangements, the value of brands in the distribution channel, managing brands as assets, and the legal aspects of branding and channel decisions. His most recent research on antitrust regulation appeared in theJournal of Corporation Law, a University of Iowa law review.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peterson, R.A., Smith, K.H. & Zerrillo, P.C. Trademark dilution and the practice of marketing. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 27, 255–268 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272009

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399272009

Keywords

Search

Navigation