Paul Alan Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group sent out a letter pointing his readers to an ongoing debate in Editor & Publisher on the topic of HR 683, the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act." Levy has, for some time, been trying to draw attention to provisions in this bill that will strip the defense of noncommercial use from defendants in trademark infringement cases.

The first item is a column by Steven Yahn that went online last weekend describing some of the problems Public Citizen and others see in the bill: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384406

That column was followed by two letters from lawyers and Yahn's reply, which gets into some pretty gritty details of the bill's wording:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002385861

Finally, a response appeared midweek from the International Trademark Association, which Levy identifies as "the bill's main private sector sponsor." That was followed by a response by Levy:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002423272

Part of the point made by Levy is that people are commenting without reading the original bill, which I haven't done, so I'll refrain from adding my own commentary here. If you can wade through it and want to add something I'd appreciate that.