与美国不同，欧盟指令中没有关于淡化的定义条款。但通常认为，欧共体枟第一号商标协调指令枠中的第４条（４）款（a）项与第５条（２）款（枟指令枠中的第４条（４）款（a）项与第５条（２）款也被认为是欧共体对于驰名商标的额外保护或者淡化保护条款。这一条款是选择性条款，但欧共体大多数成员国都已实际执行。（参阅DavidoffCieSAv．GofkidLtd．（C‐２９２／００）判决第７段。）与其他国家不同，该条款中并没有提及驰名商标，而仅仅采用“具有声誉的商标”的表述，这似乎表明，这一条款的适用门槛比较低。枟指令枠第４条（４）款（a）项与第５条（２）款条文原文如下：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．）体现了欧共体对于商标淡化的立场。由于欧盟指令中条文的具体含义往往通过欧盟法庭（ECJ）在具体的案例中进行释明，因此解读相关案例，进而明辨上述条款与淡化的关系，是一种研究进路。有关的案例表明，适用指令第４条（４）款（a）项与第５条（２）款的前提至少包括“商标近似”以及“具有声誉”。而对“商标近似”的认定不能脱离欧共体商标侵权判定框架中的“联想的可能”。
.jpg)
.jpg)