"Blur" trademark is the process of a designation losing its individualizing functions in relation to specific goods or services. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not formulate criteria for “dilution” of a trademark. However, we can learn about them by getting acquainted with the Lanham Act, formulated in the USA, which states: “The owner of a famous mark (in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation this is a “well-known trademark”), which is distinctive by its nature or by acquired distinctiveness, is entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, begins to use the mark or trade name in commerce, which may lead to dilution.” According to Lanham's Law, blurring occurs through blurring and tarnishment. These types of trademark dilution also apply to our practice.

     For example, the reasons for blurring may be the appearance on the market of confusingly similar other marks, which can lead to the loss of the uniqueness of previously registered marks, and therefore the inability of consumers to differentiate the origin of goods or services. That is, the trademark will no longer be associated with its copyright holder and will lose its protective properties.

     Also, the reason for the “blurring” of a mark can be the uncontrolled use of goods or the provision of services by licensees and franchisees - for example, the placement of the same mark on goods of different quality, which contributes to the loss of the consumer’s previously formed attitude towards a specific brand.

     It should be noted that, paradoxically, “dilution” can occur not only as a result of unfair competition, but also as a result of the popularity (well-known) of a trademark, since consumers can associate any similar designation used in relation to heterogeneous goods and services with its copyright holder.

     Mark dilution can also occur as a result of parodies of a well-known trademark, even though the parody mark does not copy the original mark.

     It is important to remember that registration of a similar designation following the “dilution” of the original trademark of the copyright holder entails a decrease in its investment and marketing value. The IPC recognizes such actions as an abuse of law and an act of unfair competition, guided by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Solution SIP dated February 21, 2019 in case No. SIP-644/2018).

     In addition, financial losses of the legal owner of a trademark may also arise due to the formation of false associative connections among consumers between the original designation and products/services of lower quality that are unusual for it.

Therefore, the primary task of the copyright holder of a mark is to prevent its “blurring” and restore associative connections in the minds of the consumer with the goods he owns or the services provided.

     To achieve this task it is necessary:

- comply with strict rules for its use for specific goods or services:

- monitor the quality of goods/services and respond to any violations, preventing them in a timely manner. It should be remembered that the copyright holders of a sign have the right to control compliance with the conditions of its use for specific goods/services corresponding to certain classes of the International Classification of Standards specified when registering the mark;

- counteract any violations of their rights, including when attempting to register similar designations and challenge the provision of legal protection to a “diluting” trademark.

     If a violation related to the “blurring” of a trademark is detected, you can:

- try to solve the problem pre-trial by sending the violator a claim in which to provide irrefutable evidence of his violation;

- suppress the activities of a competitor on marketplaces and social networks, which will help reduce financial losses of the copyright holder of the original mark;

- go to court with a claim for violation.

     As a rule, the court takes into account not only the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the products for which the “eroding” mark is used, its recognition on the market and the duration of its use, but also the motives and intent of the defendant, evidence from both parties, the frequency and nature of the illegal use of the mark.

     Therefore, in order to promptly prevent the “blurring” of a registered trademark, it is necessary to monitor violations of rights to it, researching on various online platforms and social networks. At the same time, the copyright holder himself must use his trademark in the form in which it was registered indicating the classes of the ICGS, and if the mark achieves popularity among consumers, register it as well-known.

     Thus, “blurring” of a trademark is a legal phenomenon that requires legal protection, and the identification of this violation serves as a basis for Rospatent to refuse registration of such a designation or cancel its legal protection on the territory of the Russian Federation.