An Analysis of Paragraph 7, Article 96 of the Law on the Protection of Industrial Property Regarding the Protection of Trademarks for Dissimilar Goods and Services: A Comparative Study of the Legal Systems of the United States and the European Union

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran.Iran.

2 PhD Candidate in Oil and Gas Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jlq.2026.399472.1008015

Abstract

Introduction
The protection of trademarks in relation to non-identical goods and services represents one of the most controversial expansions of modern trademark law. Traditionally, trademark protection was grounded in the principle of specialty, under which exclusive rights were limited to specific goods and services for which a mark was registered. This principle is rooted in the core function of trademarks, namely the indication of commercial origin and the prevention of consumer confusion.
However, since the mid-twentieth century, comparative legal systems have gradually expanded trademark protection beyond identical or similar goods, particularly in relation to well-known marks. Both the United States and the European Union have developed a dilution doctrine that allows protection of famous marks even in the absence of confusion regarding origin.
In contrast, Article 96(7) of the Iranian Industrial Property Protection Act introduces a broader framework, extending protection to both famous and non-famous marks in relation to dissimilar goods and services, based on two alternative grounds: likelihood of confusion or harm to the prior trademark owner. This essay adopts a descriptive-analytical method and comparative approach to examine whether this provision aligns with the economic and doctrinal foundations of modern trademark law, particularly in the United States and the European Union.
 
Method
This research is conducted using a descriptive-analytic methodology combined with a comparative legal approach. The study relies on library-based sources, including doctrinal writings, judicial precedents, and legislative frameworks from the United States, European Union, and Iran.
  First, the paper examines the historical evolution of trademark protection for non-identical goods in U.S. law, focusing on the development of dilution by blurring and tarnishment and the expansion of the sponsorship confusion doctrine. Key scholarly contributions and landmark cases are analyzed to clarify the conceptual boundaries of protection.
Second, the European Union's approach is reviewed, particularly under Directives and regulations, highlighting the concept of unfair advantage as distinct from dilution-based harm.
Finally, the Iranian provision is critically evaluated against these comparative standards to determine whether its scope is consistent with the economic rationale of trademark protection or leads to an unjustified expansion of exclusive rights.
 
Conclusion
The comparative analysis demonstrates that in both the U.S and the European Union, protection of trademarks in relation to dissimilar goods is strictly limited to well-known or reputed marks. Such protection is primarily justified under dilution theory or, in limited cases, sponsorship confusion. Importantly, non-famous marks do not benefit from protection against use on unrelated goods, as such protection lacks doctrinal and economic justification.
In contrast, Article 96(7) appears to extend protection beyond these established boundaries. The provision, as literally interpreted, allows both well-known marks to be protected against use on dissimilar goods based on either consumer confusion or harm to the trademark owner's interests. This interpretation significantly expands the scope of trademark rights and deviates from comparative legal standards.
The study concludes that such an expansive reading is inconsistent with the principles of trademark law and may lead to unjustified monopolization of market symbols without consumer benefits. Therefore, a restrictive interpretation is proposed. The first interpretive approach suggests replacing the disjunctive "or" with a conjunctive "and", thereby limiting protection to well-known marks that are both recognized and registered. The second approach introduces an implicit limitation restricting harm to interest protection exclusively to well-known marks.
Ultimately, the article recommends legislative or regulatory clarification to align Article 96(7) with internationally accepted standards, ensuring a balanced equilibrium between trademark exclusivity and public domain interests.

Keywords

References

منابع
احمدیان مقدم، فرید، جعفرزاده، میرقاسم (1396). "معیارهای احراز نقض علامت تجاری بر اساس ضوابط عام مسئولت مدنی و خصوصیات علایم تجاری در حقوق ایران و آمریکا"، فصلنامه پژوهشنامه بازرگانی، شماره 85، صص 139-169.
https://pajooheshnameh.itsr.ir/article_30554.html، (26 اردیبهشت 1405)
حبیبا، سعید، حسین­زاده، مجید (1392). "تحلیل دکترین رقیق سازی (دکترین نقض نوع دوم) در نظام حقوقی حاکم بر علائم تجاری"، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، 43 (2)، 17-35، 10.22059/JLQ.2013.35278DOI:
حبیبا، سعید و چاوشی، ابراهیم (1394). "بررسی تطبیقی علائم معروف و مشهور به عنوان دو نوع علامت تجاری دارای شهرت"، دو فصلنامه حقوق تطبیقی، 2 (1)،  75-92  https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_24482.html، (26 اردیبهشت 1405)
رنانی، مریم؛ یزدانیان، علیرضا؛ جعفرزاده، میرقاسم (1403). "مسئولیت مدنی ناشی از آسیب به ویژگی‌تمایزبخشی علامت تجاری، مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق علائم تجاری آمریکا و ایران" مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، 54، (3)، 389-414.     10.22059/JLQ.2024.375376.1007891Doi:
لجم اورک، حسن (1402). اصول حاکم بر علائم تجاری، چاپ اول، انتشارات میزان، تهران.
 
References
Ahmadian Moghadam, F., & Jafarzadeh, M. (2016). trademark infringement Criterion Based on Common Civil Responsibility Roles and Trademarks Feature in Iran and United State. Pajohwsname bazargani journal, 139-169 https://pajooheshnameh.itsr.ir/article_30554.html,
     (Accessed: 16 May 2026) [in Persian]
Aunt Jemima Milk Co,. V. Rigney& Co, v. Ringney & Co 247 F. 1917, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
   Claeryn/klarein (1976) 7I.I.C. 420, 423, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Derek A. Hawkin (2014). Likelehood of destruction- restricting the trademark dilution by blurring factors in the trademark dilution revision act. Marquette Intellectual Property law review, 18(2), 409-430, https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=iplr, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
General Motors Corp. v. Ypolon SA, (c-375/97), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Habiba, S., & Hosseinzadeh, M. (2012). analysis of dilution doctrine in trademark system. journal of private law studing, 17-35, 10.22059/JLQ.2013.35278DOI [in Persian]
Habiba, S., & Chavoshi, E. (2015). Comparative analysis of famous marks and well-known marks. Comparative law journal, 92-75, https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_24482.html, (Accessed: 16 May 2026) [in Persian]
Handler, M. (2016). what can harm the reputation of a trademark? A critical reevaluation of dilution by Tarnishment. the law journal of international Trademark Association, (106),
     https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2817299, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Japan patent office (2004). Asia pacific center, protection of well-known and fanous trademarks.  available at: p49 https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-wipo/en/offices/japan/docs/research/vietnam_2010.pdf, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Kathleen, B.M.(2000). Dilution –by- Blurring: A Theory Caugh in the Shadow of Trademark Infringement. Fordham Law Review, 68(5), 149-174 file:///C:/Users/ASUS/Downloads/NAU.JCPL+12(2)+2025_12_Nchor-1.pdf, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
lajmorak, H. (2022). principles of trademark protection. mizan, Tehran.
     Matthew Kugler (2017). he materiality of sponcership confusion. university of California, (50), 1912-1964,
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2628522, (Accessed: 16 May 2026) [in Persian]
Kenieth L. Port (2006). Trademark Dilution in Japan.Northwestern Journal of Technology and intellectual property, 4(2), https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=njtip
Mark Lemley, Mark Mckenna (2015). Irrelevant Confusion. available at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/259015/doc/slspublic/Irrelevant%20Confusion%20Lemley.pdf, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Ranani, M; Yazdanian, A; Jafarade, M.  (2024). "Civil Liability Resulting from Damage to the Distinctiveness of a Trademark: a Comparative Study in the US and Iranian Trademark Law", journal of private law studies, 54(3): 389-414,    Doi: 10.22059/JLQ.2024.375376.1007891 [in Persian]
Peterson, R., Smith, K., & Zerrillo, P. (1999). Trademark Diluton and the practice of Marketing. journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (27), 255-268, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Schechter Frank (1927). The rational Basis of Trademark Protection. Harvard Law Review, 40(6), 813-833, https://www.jstor.org/stable/i257086, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Simonson, A. (2014). How and when Do Trademarks Dilute?. The trademark reporter, (83), 149-174,
   https://tind.wipo.int/record/5866?ln=en
Tatham, D. (2008). wipo resolution on wellknown trademarks. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/panel/profiles/tatham-davidh.pdf, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Thiffany & CO. V. Tiffany Prods., Inc., 147 Misc. 679 (N.Y. Sup. 1932), aff'd, 237 A.D. 801 (A.Y. App. Div. 1932) aff'd, 262 N.Y. 482 (1933) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity
Standard oil Co of New Mexico v. Standard OIL Co. of California 56 F.2d 973(10th Cir. 1932),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Borden Ice-cream Co. v. Borden's condensed molk Co, 201 F. 510 (7 th Cir. 1912), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Phila. Storage Battery Co. v. Mindlin, 163 Misc. 52 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Vogue co v. Thompson Hudson co., 300 F.509(6th cir. 1924), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
Whashington Macias, Julio Cervino (2018). Trademark Dilution: comparing the effects of blurring and tarnishment cases over brand quality. Mnagement and marketing cahallenges for knowledge society, 436, 12(3), 346-369,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320589146_Trademark_dilution_Comparing_the_effects_of_blurring_and_tarnishment_cases_over_brand_equity, (Accessed: 16 May 2026)
 
 
 
Law Quarterly
Volume 56, Issue 1
May 2026
Pages 13-37

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics