Follow Us Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Intellectual Property Litigation Trademarks United States Supreme Court

SCOTUS to Address Whether Lanham Act Requires Willful Infringement for Profit Disgorgement

The decision in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil will bring welcome uniformity, ending the status quo where eligibility to recover profits under the Lanham Act depends on which court is deciding the dispute


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), provides a remedy in false advertising, trademark infringement and dilution cases allowing for a plaintiff’s recovery of illicit profits earned by a defendant that are attributable to its wrongful conduct. For more than two decades, Lanham Act plaintiffs in the Second Circuit have been required to make a showing that the defendant engaged in willful misconduct as a prerequisite to a disgorgement award. While this approach is consistent with that of the First, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits, no such requirement exists in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, or Eleventh Circuits, which allow disgorgement as a remedy without requiring a threshold showing of willfulness. Rather, the defendant’s intent is merely one factor in an analysis under “principles of equity” in those circuits. See, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a).

To continue reading,
become a free ALM digital reader

Benefits include:

*May exclude premium content

Read These Next