In many areas, the law of remedies can be as important as the law of rights. The strength of a particular right is often commensurate with the remedies a court is willing to grant for violations of that right. Trademark law is one area where that is particularly so. Often, courts award an injunction to stop infringing use of a trademark. Money damages, however, are harder to obtain—in most competitive markets it is quite difficult to prove the amount lost by the trademark owner due to a competitor’s use of a confusing mark. The traditional answer is to instead award disgorgement of the infringing defendant’s profits, either as a rough proxy of the trademark owner’s loss, or to disgorge unjust enrichment.
A recent Connecticut case, Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, 29 F. Supp. 3d 85 (D. Conn. 2015), aff’d, 817 F.3d 782 (Fed. Cir. 2016), presents the U.S. Supreme Court with an opportunity to resolve a longstanding dispute in trademark law: whether a prevailing trademark plaintiff must show willfulness to obtain disgorgement of the infringer’s profits. This issue has split federal courts for decades.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
