PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-190.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Sep 22, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on September 11, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to specify that ownership of a valid federal registration of a mark is a complete bar to an action with respect to the mark that: (1) is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a state; and (2) seeks to prevent dilution (by blurring or by tarnishment) or asserts any claim of actual or likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement. (Removes any such federal-registration defense with respect to dilution claims under federal law and specifies that such a defense is only available in response to dilution claims under state law.)
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-190.
Became Public Law No: 112-190.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 9/21/2012 S6665)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 9/21/2012 S6665)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5795)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5795)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6215.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5795-5796)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 465.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-647.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-647.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6215 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6215 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6215 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6215 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.