(“Abercrombie”) did not dilute Levi Strauss’s trademarked“Arcuate” design in violation of the Trademark Dilution Revi-sion Act of 2006 (“TDRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c). LeviStrauss maintains that the district court applied an incorrectlegal standard in evaluating its dilution claim, namely that the junior mark be “identical or nearly identical” to the seniorone. We agree with Levi Strauss that the “identical or nearlyidentical” standard did not survive Congress’s enactment of the TDRA and that the district court’s use of the incorrectstandard was not harmless error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for furtherproceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUNDA.The Stitched Designs
Levi Strauss created, and began selling, blue jeans in the1870s. Since 1873, the company has stitched the back pocketof its jeans with two connecting arches that meet in the centerof the pocket; Levi Strauss holds a federally registered trade-mark on this “Arcuate” design. Sales of garments bearing theArcuate mark have accounted for more than ninety-five per-cent of Levi Strauss’s revenue over the past thirty years, total-ing roughly fifty billion dollars. Levi Strauss activelymonitors use of competing stitching designs and enforces itstrademark rights against perceived infringers.In 2006, Abercrombie began using a stitching design on theback pockets of its jeans that, according to Levi Strauss, “in-corporates the distinctive arcing elements of the Arcuatetrademark.” Appellant’s Br. 4. Abercrombie’s “Ruehl” designconsists of two less-pronounced arches that are connected bya “dipsy doodle,” which resembles the mathematical sign forinfinity. The design on the Abercrombie jeans sits lower onthe pocket than Levi Strauss’s Arcuate design.**
**Images of the “Arcuate” and “Ruehl” designs appear at the end of this opinion.