Empirics demonstrate that states cannot enforce trademark dilution laws.

Although several of the twenty-seven states with anti-dilution statutes had generated a considerable case law,66 dilution doctrine suffered from the usual failings of state intellectual property protection in a federal system: disuniformity and territoriality. Indeed, for more than ten years preceding the new federal statute, commentators had called for uniform federal regulation.67 In 1987 the United States Trademark Association (now the International Trademark Association, INTA) proposed a federal anti-dilution amendment as part of the 1988 trademark law revision, but the amendment was ultimately withdrawn. A similar text passed, however, in January 1996, with the support of many trademark owners. Those who testified in favor of federalizing dilution emphasized the need for uniformity, and for nationwide injunctions.68 As with the new federal right of fixation of live musical performances, the TRIPs accord may have supplied further impetus for legislative action. Article 16;3 of that agreement mandates a kind of dilution protection, more limited than that available in some states, but, of course, more extensive than that available in the twenty-three states that had no anti-dilution measures.69