To protect the distinctiveness of famous trademarks

To prevent confusion among consumers

To ensure fair competition in the marketplace

To promote innovation and creativity

Blurring

Tarnishment

Passing off

Cybersquatting

Likelihood of confusion

Actual confusion

Injury to business reputation

Diminution in the value of the trademark

The extent of advertising and promotion

The length of time the mark has been in use

The geographic scope of the mark's use

All of the above

Injunction

Damages

Accounting of profits

All of the above

Using a similar mark on a competing product

Using a similar mark on a non-competing product

Using a similar mark in a parody or satire

Using a similar mark in a news report

Using a similar mark on a competing product

Using a similar mark on a non-competing product

Using a similar mark in a parody or satire

Using a similar mark in a news report

Trademark dilution involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is similar to a famous mark, while trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of an identical or substantially similar mark.

Trademark dilution involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is similar to a famous mark, while trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or substantially similar to a registered mark.

Trademark dilution involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is similar to a famous mark, while trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or substantially similar to a mark that has acquired secondary meaning.

Trademark dilution involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is similar to a famous mark, while trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or substantially similar to a mark that has acquired distinctiveness.

It expanded the scope of trademark dilution protection to include marks that are not famous.

It created a new cause of action for trademark dilution based on blurring.

It established a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in trademark dilution cases.

All of the above

McDonald's successfully sued Burger King for using the phrase 'Have it your way' in its advertising.

Nike successfully sued Adidas for using a similar swoosh design on its sneakers.

Coca-Cola successfully sued PepsiCo for using a similar red and white color scheme on its cans.

Apple successfully sued Microsoft for using the name 'Windows' for its operating system.

Fair use

Nominative fair use

Comparative advertising

All of the above

Intent is irrelevant in trademark dilution cases.

Intent is a factor in determining whether a mark is famous.

Intent is a factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

Intent is a factor in determining whether there is blurring or tarnishment.

Using a trademark in a news report

Using a trademark in a comparative advertising campaign

Using a trademark in a parody or satire

Using a trademark in a scholarly article

The Polaroid factors are used to determine whether a mark is famous.

The Polaroid factors are used to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

The Polaroid factors are used to determine whether there is blurring or tarnishment.

The Polaroid factors are used to determine the appropriate remedy for trademark dilution.