Let's Open This To The Floor Re 43(c)(4) Defenses

Referring to previous posts here and here, the Public Citizen has been disputing INTA and AIPLA as to the effect of language in the DIlution Revision Bill. Its latest memo is here.
We’re taking comments from the floor on the following questions:
1. Does the use of ‘section’ rather than subsection in the current 43(c)(4) imply that Congress intended for the enumerated defenses in that clause extend to all causes in Section 43 and not just 43(c);
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would amending ‘section’ to specific references to dilution in 43(c)(4) have the effect of removing the enumerated defenses from section 43(a) and 43(d);
3. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would removing those references to dilution in the proposed bill and maintaining the word ‘section’ have the effect of explicitly extending those defenses to 43(a) and 43(d)?

Comments are closed.