1. The protection scope of a famous mark depends on the degree of its famousness and the variety of the owner’s business. If such famous mark has been used in particular goods or services for a long time and the recognition of the famousness is only among the consumers of that particular goods or services, the mark is merely considered as well known to relevant consumers. The protection scope is limited to the particular goods or services. On the other hand, if the owner of such famous mark has a variety of business or it is well known to general people, then the protection scope is not limited to the same or similar goods or services. That is, the protection can be extended to the less relevant goods or services. “Famous” (well-known) used in Art. 23, Para. 1, Subpara. 12 of the Trademark Act is judged by objective evidence proving that such famousness is well recognized by relevant business entities or consumers in this country. Thus, even if such famous mark is extensively used in the foreign country and well recognized by general consumers in that country, the reputation such mark has established in that country cannot be recognized in this country. The protection scope is limited by the degree of the famousness of such mark in this country.
2. “Likelihood of the dilution of the distinctiveness of a famous mark” means that the distinctiveness of a famous mark could be weakened. That is, a third party’s use of such famous mark causes consumers to associate the mark with various sources of goods or services. Consequently, the characteristics that such mark has acquired to show one single source of goods or services could be eliminated. The distinctiveness of such mark is diluted or weakened. “Likelihood of the dilution of the reputation of a famous mark” means that the quality or reputation of a famous mark could be condemned or associated with negative images. The determination of whether the distinctiveness or reputation of a famous mark is likely to be diluted should consider several factors, such as the instinctive distinctiveness and reputation of such famous mark, the similarity between such famous mark and infringing mark, and the third party’s use of such infringing mark in different goods or services. The protection of a trademark from dilution, vested in Art. 23, Para. 1, Cl. 12 of the Trademark Act, has expanded to the markets where the owner does not face direct conflicts against his business interests. That results in a serious impact on the competition and bears a risk of creating monopoly on a specific word, picture, mark or other collective mark. So, the protection regarding trademark dilution should be limited to famous marks so as to reduce the harm and risk. As a result, for applying the protection against trademark dilution in accord with Art. 23, Para. 1, Cl. 12 of the Trademark Act, the standard of the famousness of such famous mark and the similarity between such famous mark and infringing mark should be higher than the standard for the likelihood of confusion. The application of the law regarding likelihood of dilution is possible only if the famousness of such famous mark reaches a level where general people have recognized such famous mark and the similarity of such famous mark and infringing mark is extremely high.