與美國不同，歐盟指令中沒有關于淡化的定義條款。但通常認為，歐共體枟第一號商標協調指令枠中的第４條（４）款（a）項與第５條（２）款（枟指令枠中的第４條（４）款（a）項與第５條（２）款也被認為是歐共體對于馳名商標的額外保護或者淡化保護條款。這一條款是選擇性條款，但歐共體大多數成員國都已實際執行。（參閱DavidoffCieSAv．GofkidLtd．（C‐２９２／００）判決第７段。）與其他國家不同，該條款中并沒有提及馳名商標，而僅僅采用“具有聲譽的商標”的表述，這似乎表明，這一條款的適用門檻比較低。枟指令枠第４條（４）款（a）項與第５條（２）款條文原文如下：Article４（４）Any Member State may furthermore provide that a trademark shall not be registered or，if registered，shall be liable to be declared invalid where，and to the extent that：（a）The trademark is identical with，or similar to，an earlier national trademark within the meaning of paragraph２and is to be，or has been，registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trademark is registered，where the earlier trademark has a reputation in the Member Statec oncerned and where the use of the later trademark without due cause would take unfair advantage of，or be detrimental to，the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark；Article５（２）Any Member State may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with，or similar to，the trademark in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered，where the latter has a reputation in the Member Stateand where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of，or is detrimental to，the distinctive character or ther epute of the trademark．）體現了歐共體對于商標淡化的立場。由于歐盟指令中條文的具體含義往往通過歐盟法庭（ECJ）在具體的案例中進行釋明，因此解讀相關案例，進而明辨上述條款與淡化的關系，是一種研究進路。有關的案例表明，適用指令第４條（４）款（a）項與第５條（２）款的前提至少包括“商標近似”以及“具有聲譽”。而對“商標近似”的認定不能脫離歐共體商標侵權判定框架中的“聯想的可能”。
.jpg)
.jpg)