Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court, settling a circuit split, held that, although highly important, willfulness is not a prerequisite for a trademark infringement plaintiff to obtain a profits award.
On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), settling a circuit split and holding that, although highly important, willfulness is not a prerequisite for a trademark infringement plaintiff to obtain a profits award. In a relatively short decision, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, rejected the Second Circuit’s denial of disgorgement of profits after a jury found that a trademark infringer callously, but not willfully, infringed a business partner’s trademark. Relying in large part on a textual distinction within the Lanham Act’s damages provision, 15 U.S.C. Section 1117(a), the Court ruled that while there is a mens rea requirement to a profits award for trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), Section 1125(a) has no such statutory language for trademark infringement, and reading in such language must be avoided. Justice Alito filed a one-paragraph concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor also filed a concurring opinion, agreeing only in the judgment that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit need not show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark to obtain a profits award.
*May exclude premium content
By Stacey C. Kalamaras and Henry Kaskov
This article explores the options available to a client to value its trademarks during a financial crisis, to ensure one of the most valuable assets it owns can continue to work for the company and see it through the lean times.
By Jared Looper
Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits International BV
What do the fall of the Soviet Union, a heist of trademark rights, and Stolichnaya vodka have in common? They are all key components of the Russian Federation’s efforts to reclaim its trademarks in Stolichnaya vodka.
By Laura O’Laughlin, Harriet Ho and Duy (Joey) Duong
As survey evidence has become increasingly common in litigation, it is important to remember that not all surveys are made the same. It’s important to be able to identify the right survey methodology for the matter at hand. Third in a series
By Jeff Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit: ITC Did Not Err in Denying Non-Respondent’s Petition to Rescind Exclusion Order Based on Invalidity Grounds
Federal Circuit: District Court Did Not Err in Ruling that ‘Half-Liquid’ Is Indefinite
Federal Circuit: District Court Did Not Err In Allowing Jury to Determine Infringement Based on Products’ Compliance with Standard