Abstract

     The dilution doctrine and the right of publicity have a great deal in common, because both represent property-like rights that have evolved from legal doctrines largely unrelated to property concerns. Although both doctrines have engendered controversy in the United States, the dilution doctrine generally evokes greater skepticism and confusion. This article evaluates how these concepts are viewed in a number of jurisdictions outside the United States. From this examination, two conclusions emerge. First, despite the similarities between the doctrines, countries do not tend to adopt or reject them in tandem. Second, the degree to which each doctrine achieves widespread and well-understood acceptance in a particular country depends on whether and to what extent that doctrine has evolved from the nation’s own legal and cultural traditions. When a country adopts either of these doctrines largely as a result of international pressures or legislative mandates that have little foundation in domestic tradition,judicial confusion and/or resistance are common results.