• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Newark
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment Law
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Proptech
Public Finance 
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits 
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients 
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Media item displaying Trademark State of Mind: Willfulness Not Required for an Award of a Trademark Infringer’s Profits
Main image for Trademark State of Mind: Willfulness Not Required for an Award of a Trademark Infringer’s Profits
Publications|Alert

Trademark State of Mind: Willfulness Not Required for an Award of a Trademark Infringer’s Profits

Intellectual Property Alert

4.24.2020

I don’t have any reasons
I left them all behind
I’m in a trademark state of mind.

A “New York State of Mind” may matter to Billy Joel, but state of mind does not matter when it comes to eligibility for certain remedies for trademark infringement. The Supreme Court has just resolved a long-standing split of authority among the lower courts by holding that a trademark owner seeking to disgorge a trademark infringer’s profits need not first prove that the infringer had a bad faith state of mind—that is, that the infringement was “willful.” Even so-called innocent infringement could lead to a disgorgement of profits in some cases. 

The typical trademark owner may first try to stop the infringement by seeking a court-ordered injunction preventing continuing infringement.  But trademark owners may also seek monetary damages. Damages may take several forms, including (1) actual damages, such as an award of the trademark owner’s lost profits caused by the trademark infringement, and (2) disgorgement of the infringer’s profits made from the infringement.  Disgorgement of the infringer’s profits is sometimes awarded when the trademark owner’s actual damages are inadequate to compensate for the infringement. Damages from lost sales can be difficult to calculate, while profits gained through the infringement are often more certain.  Until now, however, many courts would not consider awarding the defendant’s profits unless the trademark owner first proved that the defendant’s infringement was willful—that is, the infringer knew of the trademark, intended to bank on the trademark owner’s goodwill, disregarded the owner’s trademark rights, or otherwise acted in bad faith.  Other courts held that proving willfulness was not a prerequisite to recovering the infringer’s ill-gotten profits.   

To resolve this split, the Supreme Court simply read the relevant statute—in this case, Section 35 of the Lanham Act (35 U.S.C.  § 1117(a)), which is the federal law governing trademark rights. That statute, plainly read, does not require a showing of willfulness for damages resulting from garden-variety trademark infringement. Willfulness may still be a consideration in determining damages, but it is not an absolute requirement.

To legal scholars, the Supreme Court’s opinion may be more interesting as a lesson on how to read and interpret statutes than as a lesson on trademark law and policy. But the outcome may still have a significant impact on trademark enforcement. This ruling removes doubt that trademark owners may potentially recover the infringer’s profits, thus giving trademark owners more leverage when policing infringements. And for business owners, the ruling is a note of caution that may prompt them to be more careful when choosing brand names or crafting advertisements.  Customer confusion is the state of mind to be studiously avoided.

The case is Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233 (U.S., Apr. 23, 2020).

McCarter English has a team of knowledgeable trademark attorneys who can assist you with your trademark issues and needs.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Erik Paul Belt
Erik Paul Belt

Partner

Media item: Susan Okin Goldsmith
Susan Okin Goldsmith

Partner

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2021 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel