Dear Editor,
A rather troublesome bill currently in the senate has been brought to my attention recently. The bill has a rather nasty impact on writers in general.
The entire thing is being used to overturn the supreme court ruling in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 123 S.Ct. 1115 (2003). The Supreme Court ruling demanded hard evidence in regards to dilution by blurring or tarnishment.
Under the current trademark law, Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham Act), it is not stated whether hard evidence is required or not. Having to go on hard evidence instead of speculation angered a lot of big businesses, and so we have H. R. 683 Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 (TDRA) sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX].
The bill dangerously depletes the protections writers have for non-commercial use of trademarked names and symbols. TDRA does give expressed protection for comparative advertising, parody, criticism, commentary, news reporting and news commentary, but then goes on to state a claim can arise if the person “willfully intended to harm the reputation of the famous mark.”
Proof of this intention is no longer required so I fail to see how this really protects criticism and parody; it also gives no protection to mention of trademarks in works that do not fall under these specific categories.
TDRA passed the house 411 to 8 with 15 not voting, Rep. William Jenkins (the representative from our area) did not vote, and only Rep. John Duncan of the other eight Tennessee representatives voted against it.
The bill is still in the Senate, so if anyone likes their freedom of speech I suggest writing to either Sen. Bill Frist or Sen. Lamar Alexander and expressing that.
Casey Carroll

Author