December 4, 2020

Volume X, Number 339

Advertisement

December 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

2020 Brings (Some) Clarity to Trademark Profit Awards

Nearly a year ago, we previewed the U.S. Supreme Court’s then-upcoming decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc.—a case set to provide some much needed clarity on the question of whether plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases must demonstrate that defendants acted willfully in order for plaintiffs to recover defendants’ profits.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court resolving the circuit split on this issue and holding that a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement under § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act is not required to prove willful infringement as a precondition to recovering lost profits. The Court reasoned that the clear and unambiguous language of the Lanham Act’s remedies provision only requires a precondition of willfulness when awarding profits for trademark dilution under § 1125(c), not trademark infringement under § 1125(a).  The Court was careful to note that willfulness, though not a precondition to awarding profits, remains an important factor a court should consider when assessing damages.  It simply is not, however, an “inflexible” threshold inquiry.

Given the expansive nature of the ruling, it seems likely to benefit not only plaintiffs bringing trademark infringement cases—it may also benefit litigants bringing false advertising lawsuits because false advertising claims are also governed by § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act.

It remains to be seen how this guidance will ultimately be implemented by the lower courts.  But one thing is certain:  infringers should expect more aggressive enforcement efforts from rights holders and an uptick in infringement filings.  Stated differently, the needle has moved in rights holders’ favor, and there is now more incentive to litigate.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 303
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Louis T. Perry Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath Indianapolis, IN
Partner

Lou Perry represents clients in intellectual property litigation. A member of the firm’s trademark, copyright, advertising and media practice, Lou serves as trial counsel for clients in federal and state courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Lou has represented clients from a variety of industries in disputes arising under:

  • The Lanham Act
  • The Copyright Act
  • The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  • The Telephone Consumer Protection Act

IP Counseling and Licensing Expertise

Lou handles the...

317-237-1089
Advertisement
Advertisement