•  
  •  
 

Authors

Scott Harvison

Abstract

This Comment contains six main parts. Part II analyzes the Lanham Act of 19461 and the likelihood of confusion standard, which led to the enactment of the FTDA. Part III briefly examines the history of dilution and then looks at the FTDA. Part IV focuses on the FTDA's legislative history and intent. In light of the discussion in the foregoing parts, Part V examines differing interpretations of fame as demonstrated by the decisions by the Third and Ninth Circuits, which illustrate and incorporate the differing interpretations of the FTDA among other circuits. In Part VI, this Comment concludes by proposing a uniform standard for all courts to follow.