Protection of trademarks against delution: a semiotic perspective

Відомості про автора:

Katya Assaf Zakharov
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, Israel

Дата публікації: 23.03.2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2026-8-1-25-51

Ключові слова: cultural significance of trademarks, legal protection of trademarks, identification of the origin of goods and services, marketing and branding, the US legal system

Завантажити PDF
Обкладинка. 8-й випуск

Анотація

This article deals with the cultural meaning of trademarks and the social significance of its legal protection. It focuses on the US legal system. Trademarks are symbols designed to enable the consumer to identify without confusion the source of various goods and services. Today, however, trademarks are much more than source identifiers. They are culturally meaningful signs. Thus, for example, the trademark “Coca-Cola,” in addition to conveying information about the origin of soft drinks, is associated with freedom, youth, joy and globalization. The trademark “Chanel” stands not only for fragrances and apparel, but also for exclusivity, intelligence and European chic. The cultural meaning of the Olympic rings and Mickey Mouse, both registered trademarks, can hardly be gasped in a few words. Famous trademarks embed values, visions and ideals we believe in. As cultural signs, they occupy a rather central place in our society. The cultural meaning of a trademark is carefully built up by its owner by means of advertising and other marketing techniques. These techniques create associative links between the trademark and various positive cultural signs such as freedom, youth, intelligence, etc. This article argues that these links are reciprocal. That is, while the trademark begins to carry some of the meaning of the cultural signs it has been linked to, these cultural signs also absorb some of the commercial flavor of the mark

Як цитувати

In accordance with DSTU 8302:2015:
Assaf Zakharov K. Protection of trademarks against delution: a semiotic perspective. Цивілістична платформа. 2026. № 1 (8). С. 25-51. https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2026-8-1-25-51

According to the international style of APA:
Assaf Zakharov, K. (2026) Protection of trademarks against delution: a semiotic perspective. С. P. Journal, 1 (8). https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2026-8-1-25-51 [in English].

Посилання

  1. Pierre Bourdieu, Masculine Domination 1-2 (2001).
  2. 123 S. Ct. 1115, 1124 (U.S. 2003).
  3. 505 F.Supp.2d 1161 (D. Utah 2007).
  4. A term coined by Marjorie Kelly.  Marjorie Kelly, The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy (2001).
  5. A term introduced by Karl Marx in Karl Marx, Capital 163 et seq. (1976).
  6. Amitai Etzioni, How Rational We?, Sociological Forum, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1, 10 (1987).
  7. Ana I. Valenzuela, Bart J. Wojdynski & Nathaniel J. Evans, Disclosure of Sponsored Content: Examining the Role of Brand Prominence and Persuasion Knowledge in Native Advertising, 39 PSYCHOL. & MKTG. 2261 (2022).
  8. Andrew Wernick, Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology, and Symbolic Expression 189 (1991).
  9. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 F.3d 769, 774-775 (8th Cir. 1994);
  10. Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and the DAAD Center for German Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  11. Bacardi & Company Ltd. v. Bacardi Mfg Jewelers Co., Inc., 174 U.S.P.Q. 284 (N.D. Ill. 1972), aff’d, 475 F.2d 1406 (7th Cir. 1973).
  12. BGH 3 StR 481/06 vom 15.03.2007.
  13. BGH 3 StR 495/01 vom 31.07.2002.
  14. Brian Gillespie et al., Fitting Product Placements: Affective Fit and Cognitive Fit as Drivers of Consumer Evaluations of Brand Placements, 35 J. BUS. RSCH. 1 (2018).
  15. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, Happiness and Well-Being: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Happiness 29 (2002).
  16. Celia Lury, Brands: the Logos of the Global Economy 86-87 (2004);
  17. N. Allen, A Psychology of Motivation for Advertisers, 25 J. of Applied Psych. 378, 383 (1941);
  18. Chemical Corp. of America v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 306 F.2d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 1962);
  19. Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183, 1188-1191 (E.D. N.Y. 1972).
  20. Cristel A. Russell & Barbara B. Stern, The Effects of Product Placement in Fictitious Literature on Consumer Choice, 33 & Mktg. 985 (2016).
  21. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema Ltd., 467 F. Supp. 366, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1979);
  22. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200, 206 (2d Cir.1979);
  23. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Scoreboard Posters, Inc., 600 F.2d 1184, 1188 (5th Cir. 1979).
  24. David Glen Mick, Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance, The Journal of Consumer Research 13, No.2 196, 198 (1986).
  25. Deborah R. Gerhardt, The 2006 Trademark Dilution Revision Act Rolls Out a Luxury Claim and a Parody Exemption, 8 C. J. L. & Tech. 205, 226-227 (2007).
  26. Dennis Hirsch, Protecting the Inner Environment: What Privacy Regulation Can Learn from Environmental Law, 41 Ga. L. Rev. 1, 23 et seq. (2006).
  27. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403-1405 (9th Cir. 1997);
  28. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343 (1972);
  29. Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 58-59 (1973);
  30. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 2530 (2002).
  31. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. v. High Soc. Magazine, Inc., 7 Media L. Rep.1862 (S.D. N.Y. 1981).
  32. Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 L. Rev. 809, 815 (1935).
  33. Fireman’s Association of the State of New York v. French American School of New York, 2007 WL 1628372 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.).
  34. For an opposite view  Robert G. Bone, A Skeptical view of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 11 Prop. L. Bull. 187, 189-191 (2007): “Dilution by tarnishment is the least problematic […] [type] of dilution.”
  35. For the historical development of the doctrine  Robert N. Klieger, Trademark Dilution: the Whittling away of the Rational Basis for Trademark Protection, 58 Pitt. L. Rev. 789 (1997).
  36. Frank Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 L. Rev. 813 (1927).
  37. Fromm, The Sane Society 123 (1955)
  38. General Electric Co. v. Alumpa Coal Co., 205 U.S.P.Q. 1036, 1036-1037 (D Mass 1979).
  39. Generally Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of taste (1984).
  40. GTFM LLC v. Universal Studios Inc., 2006 WL 1377048 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
  41. Interbank Card Ass’n v. Simms, 431 F. Supp. 131, 133-134 (M.D. N.C. 1977).
  42. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §§ 24.70-24.71 (5th ed. 2025).
  43. Jacob Jacoby, The Psychological Foundations of Trademark Law: Secondary Meaning, Genericism, Fame, Confusion and Dilution, 91 Trademark Rep. 1013, 1042-1045 (2001).
  44. James Gibson, Risk Aversion and Rights Accretion in Intellectual Property Law, 116 Yale L.J. 882 (2007).
  45. Jisu Huh & Hye-Jin Kim, Native Advertising in Online News: Effects of Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Familiarity on Brand Attitudes, 29 J. PROMOTION MGMT. 1 (2020);
  46. John Burkhalter & Carol Curasi, Music and Its Multitude of Meanings: Exploring What Makes Brand Placements in Music Videos Authentic, 24 J. BRAND MGMT. 213 (2017);
  47. Joseph William Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 L. Rev. 465, 487-494 (1988).
  48. Kasky v. Nike, 27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002).
  49. Katya Zakharov, The Right of Publicity: How Much of It Can Be Protected by Privacy and the Law of Trademarks?, 2003 GRUR Int. 118, 125-126 (2003).
  50. Kent D. Stuckey et al, Internet and Online Law 7.03 (2008).
  51. L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir. 1987).
  52. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298,
  53. LG Stuttgart 18 KLs 4 Js 63331/05 vom 29.09.2006.
  54. LightHawk, The Environmental Air Force v. Robertson, 812 F.Supp. 1095 (W.D.Wash.1993).
  55. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 464 F. Supp. 2d 495, 507 (E.D. Va. 2006).
  56. Ross Quillian, Semantic Memory, in Semantic Information Processing 227-270 (Marvin Minsky ed., 1927).
  57. Mark A. Lemley, The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense, 108 Yale L.J. 1687, 1708 (1999);
  58. Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
  59. Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
  60. Matthew McAllister, Sponsorship, Globalization and the Summer Olympics, in Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising 35, 41–43 (Katherine Toland Frith ed., 1997).
  61. Matthew P. McAllister, The Commercialization of the American Culture 40 et seq. (1996);
  62. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly 115 et seq. (1983);
  63. Edwin Baker, Advertising and a Democratic Press, 140 Pa. L. Rev. 2097, 2139 et seq. (1992).
  64. Miles J. Alexander & Michael K. Heilbronner, Dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 59 Law & Contemp. Probs. 93, 124 (1996).
  65. More generally, promises of future performance in advertising are considered “puffing” and are not actionable as fraud: American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co., 763 F. Supp. 1473, 1487 (D. Minn. 1991).
  66. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 402-403 (8th Cir. 1987);
  67. Natalie A. Dopson, The Federal Trademark Dilution Act and Its Effect on Parody: No Laughing Matter, 5 Intell. Prop. L. 539 (1998);
  68. Robert S. Nelson, Unraveling the Trademark Rope: Tarnishment and its Proper Place in the Laws of Unfair Competition, 42 IDEA 133 (2002);
  69. Julie Zando-Dennis, Not Playing Around: the Chilling Power of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 11 Cardozo Women’s L.J. 599 (2005).
  70. Newton’s third law.
  71. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, 642 F. Supp. 1031, 1032 (N.D. Ga. 1986).
  72. Others believe that the scope of the defense has not been changed: Marc L. Delflache & Sarah Silbert & Christina Hillson, Life after Moseley: the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 16 Intell. Prop. L.J. 125, 142 (2007).
  73. Reddy Communications, Inc. v. Environmental Action Foundation, Inc., 199 U.S.P.Q. 630 (D.D.C. 1977).
  74. Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law§ 1.1-1.2, at 5-13 (3d ed. 1986);
  75. Mitchell Polinsky, An Introduction to Law and Economics 10 (2d ed. 1989).
  76. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Celozzi-Ettelson Chevrolet, Inc., 855 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1988).
  77. Robert C. Denicola, Freedom to Copy, 108 Yale L.J. 1661, 1668 (1999);
  78. Robert C. Denicola, Some Thoughts on the Dynamics of Federal Trademark Legislation and the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 59 Law & Contemp. Probs. 75, 88-90 (1996);
  79. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 997-98 (2d Cir.1989), cited approvingly in Charles Atlas, Ltd. v. D C Comics, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 2d 330, 337 (S.D. N.Y. 2000).
  80. Ross D. Petty, Of Tartans and Trademarks, 94 Trademark Rep. 859, 876;
  81. San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. International Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987).
  82. Terry L. Andras & Srinivasan Srinivasan, Advertising Intensity and R&D Intensity: Differences Across Industries and Their Impact on Firm Performance, 2 INT’L J. BUS. & ECON. 167 (2003).
  83. The United States Constitution
  84. Tiffany & Co. v. Boston Club, Inc., 231 F. Supp. 836 (D. Mass. 1964).
  85. Tiffany & Co. v. Classic Motor Carriages, Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1835 (T.T.A.B. 1989).
  86. Tiffany & Co. v. Tiffany Productions, 264 N.Y.S. 459 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.1932), aff’d, 260 N.Y.S. 821 (N.Y. Div. 1932).
  87. Tim Kasser, The High Price of Materialism 5-22 (2002).
  88. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corp. v. Natural Health Trends Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10442 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
  89. Trademark law is considered to be part of unfair competition law: United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918); Union Nat’l Bank v. Union Nat’l Bank, 909 F.2d 839, 844 n.10 (5th Cir. 1990); Keebler Co. v. Rovira Biscuit Corp., 624 F.2d 366, 372 (1st Cir. 1980).
  90. Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics 69 (1976).
  91. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Casey & Casey, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 201 (S.D. Fla. 1985), aff’d, 792 F.2d 1125 (11th Cir. 1986).
  92. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. T-Shirt Gallery, Ltd., 634 F. Supp. 1468 (S.D. N.Y. 1986).
  93. Valérie Meunier, Theory of Industrial Organization, http://www.econ.au.dk/fag/2157/e06/Notes/Intro_Chap1.pdf 1 (2006);
  94. Walt Disney Co. v. Powell, 698 F. Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1988), aff’d in part and vacated in part, remanded, 897 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
  95. WHS Entertainment Ventures v. United Paperworkers Intern. Union, 997 F. Supp. 946 (M.D. Tenn. 1998): flyers that listed violations of a saloon and included a parody of the saloon’s trademark were not found to violate the mark.
  96. Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc., 809 F. Supp 267, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1992);
  97. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 583 (1994).
© Цивілістична платформа.
Всі права захищено. 2026