New York Assembly Bill A07718

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/25
• Refer: 4/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides for remedies for trademark dilution; allows the court, in its discretion, to enter judgment for an amount of three times such profits and damages and/or reasonable attorneys' fees of the prevailing party.

Summary

A07718 amends New York’s General Business Law section 360-l, which governs injury to business reputation and trademark dilution. The bill keeps the existing rule that a likelihood of dilution or injury to business reputation can justify injunctive relief even when the parties do not compete and there is no confusion about the source of goods or services. It adds a new remedy provision allowing a court, in its discretion, to award treble damages—three times profits and damages—and/or reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. In practical terms, the bill would strengthen remedies available to owners of registered and unregistered marks and to parties bringing unfair competition claims under New York law. It would give courts broader discretion to impose monetary consequences in dilution cases, potentially increasing the leverage of trademark owners in litigation and making enforcement more costly for alleged infringers or diluters. The bill would take effect immediately if enacted.

Impact

The bill would amend the state’s trademark dilution statute in the General Business Law by expanding available remedies beyond injunctive relief to include discretionary treble profits and damages and attorneys’ fees. This would affect trademark owners, businesses accused of dilution or unfair competition, and courts handling intellectual property disputes in New York. It would not change the underlying standard for liability, but it would materially increase potential exposure once a violation is found.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available record suggests a generally pro-enforcement, trademark-protection orientation. The proposal appears designed to give rights holders stronger tools to deter dilution and recover litigation costs. Because there are no transcripts or voting results provided, there is no documented opposition or support to gauge broader legislative sentiment.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the expansion of remedies from injunctive relief to treble monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. Supporters would likely view this as necessary to deter trademark dilution and unfair competition and to make prevailing parties whole, while critics could argue that treble damages and fee shifting may increase litigation risk and create heavier burdens for businesses accused of infringement or dilution. The discretionary nature of the remedy may also be a point of discussion, since it leaves significant authority with the court.