Predictable trademark law is key to solve, but the counterplan results in inconsistent policy and shoddy protection measures.

The new federal law appears to leave state anti-dilution law undisturbed, with one explicit exception. It provides that ownership of a federal trademark registration “shall be a complete bar to an action against that person under the common law or statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.76”

If no state anti-dilution claim can be brought against a federally registered mark, the clear implication is that state anti-dilution claims may still be enforced against unregistered marks. Similarly, the legislative history indicates that while the Lanham Act now protects nationally famous marks against dilution, federal law "would not pre-empt existing state dilution statutes. State laws could continue to be applied in cases involving locally famous or distinctive marks. " 77

The preservation of state dilution claims may be problematic; it threatens to revive the "unpredictable" "patch-quilt" features of protection that lawmakers and trademark owners decried before enactment of the federal provision.78 Arguably, state protection will not interfere with nationwide rights, because one can expect that any nationally famous mark would be registered. Any unpredictability inherent in disuniform state regulation would, in theory, be confined to the regulation of local trade symbols. Moreover, the preemption of state dilution claims against federally registered marks may promote federal registration for all marks, especially, perhaps, for less known marks that might form the targets of state claims. Promoting federal registration enhances national uniformity and predictability in trademark law.