In our celebrity-conscious culture, the media serve as arbiters of fame. The editors of Us Weekly and People wield significant influence over public recognition of celebrities. Since the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") amended the Lanham Act in 1995, federal courts have adopted similar roles as arbiters of fame, determining which trademarks are sufficiently famous to receive federal protection against dilution.

Some have argued that the changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (the "FTDA") embodied in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (the "TDRA") threaten to infringe upon the right to free speech. This is simply not the case. The FTDA has always protected First Amendment rights, and the TDRA clarifies and strengthens those protections.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. in 2003, an amendment to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") has appeared inevitable. Congress almost certainly meant to adopt a "likelihood of dilution" standard in the original statute, and the 2006 revisions correct its sloppy drafting. Substituting a "likelihood of dilution" standard for "actual dilution," however, does not resolve a deeper philosophical question that has always lurked in the dilution debate: what is dilution, and how does one prove or disprove its probability?

Dilution looked to be a potent weapon when Congress introduced it as § 43(c) of the Lanham Act in 1995. Indeed, some observers feared that it would be too potent (and in some contexts, such as cybersquatting, it successfully augmented traditional causes of action). But a series of court decisions, culminating in the Supreme Court's 2003 Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue opinion, weakened dilution protection so profoundly that what remained wasn't of much consequence.