{"id":3292,"date":"2020-05-24T18:06:21","date_gmt":"2020-05-24T18:06:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/?p=3292"},"modified":"2020-05-24T18:06:24","modified_gmt":"2020-05-24T18:06:24","slug":"willfulness-of-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/2020\/05\/willfulness-of-infringement.html","title":{"rendered":"Willfulness of infringement as precondition to award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff\u2019s trademark as a precondition to a profits award<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

The Lanham Act provision governing remedies for trademark violations, makes a showing of willfulness a precondition to a profits award in a suit under \u00a71125(c) for trademark dilution, but \u00a71125(a) has never required such a showing. Reading words into a statute should be avoided, especially when they are included elsewhere in the very same statute.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

When it comes to remedies for trademark infringement, the Lanham Act authorizes many. A district court may award a winning plaintiff injunctive relief, damages, or the defendant\u2019s ill-gotten profits. Without question, a defendant\u2019s state of mind may have a bearing on what relief a plaintiff should receive.<\/span><\/p>\n

An innocent trademark violator often stands in very different shoes than an intentional one. But some circuits have gone further. These courts hold a plaintiff can win a profits remedy, in particular, only after showing the defendant willfully infringed its trademark. The question before us is whether that categorical rule can be reconciled with the statute\u2019s plain language.<\/span><\/p>\n

Romag sells magnetic snap fasteners for use in leather goods. Fossil designs, markets, and distributes a wide range of fashion accessories. Years ago, the pair signed an agreement allowing Fossil to use Romag\u2019s fasteners in Fossil\u2019s handbags and other products. Initially, both sides seemed content with the arrangement.<\/span><\/p>\n

But in time Romag discovered that the factories Fossil hired in China to make its products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners \u2013 and that Fossil was doing little to guard against the practice. Unable to resolve its concerns amicably, Romag sued. The company alleged that Fossil had infringed its trademark and falsely represented that its fasteners came from Romag.<\/span><\/p>\n

After trial, a jury agreed with Romag, and found that Fossil had acted \u201cin callous disregard\u201d of Romag\u2019s rights. At the same time, however, the jury rejected Romag\u2019s accusation that Fossil had acted willfully, as that term was defined by the district court.<\/span><\/p>\n

By way of relief for Fossil\u2019s trademark violation, Romag sought (among other things) an order requiring Fossil to hand over the profits it had earned thanks to its trademark violation. But the district court refused this request. The court pointed out that controlling Second Circuit precedent requires a plaintiff seeking a profits award to prove that the defendant\u2019s violation was willful. Not all circuits, however, agree with the Second Circuit\u2019s rule.<\/span><\/p>\n

The statute does make a showing of willfulness a precondition to a profits award when the plaintiff proceeds under \u00a71125(c). That section creates a cause of action for trademark dilution \u2013 conduct that lessens the association consumers have with a trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Romag alleged and proved a violation of \u00a71125(a), a provision establishing a cause of action for the false or misleading use of trademarks. And in cases like that, the statutory language has never required a showing of willfulness to win a defendant\u2019s profits.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Lanham Act speaks often and expressly about mental states. Section 1117(b) requires courts to treble profits or damages and award attorney\u2019s fees when a defendant engages in certain acts intentionally and with specified knowledge. Section 1117(c) increases the cap on statutory damages from $200,000 to $2,000,000 for certain willful violations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Section 1118 permits courts to order the infringing items be destroyed if a plaintiff proves any violation of \u00a71125(a) or a willful violation of \u00a71125(c). Section 1114 makes certain innocent infringers subject only to injunctions. Elsewhere, the statute specifies certain mens rea standards needed to establish liability, before even getting to the question of remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n

So how exactly does Fossil seek to conjure a willfulness requirement out of \u00a71117(a)? Lacking any more obvious statutory hook, the company points to the language indicating that a violation under \u00a71125(a) can trigger an award of the defendant\u2019s profits \u201csubject to the principles of equity.\u201d In Fossil\u2019s telling, equity courts historically required a showing of willfulness before authorizing a profits remedy in trademark disputes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Admittedly, equity courts didn\u2019t require so much in patent infringement cases and other arguably analogous suits. But, Fossil says, trademark is different. There alone, a willfulness requirement was so long and universally recognized that today it rises to the level of a \u201cprinciple of equity\u201d the Lanham Act carries forward.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fossil\u2019s contention that the term \u201cprinciples of equity\u201d includes a willfulness requirement would not directly contradict the statute\u2019s other, express mens rea provisions or render them wholly superfluous. But it would require the court to assume that Congress intended to incorporate a willfulness requirement here obliquely while it prescribed mens rea conditions expressly elsewhere throughout the Lanham Act. That might be possible, but on first blush it isn\u2019t exactly an obvious construction of the statute.<\/span><\/p>\n

The phrase \u201cprinciples of equity\u201d doesn\u2019t readily bring to mind a substantive rule about mens rea from a discrete domain like trademark law. In the context of this statute, it more naturally suggests fundamental rules that apply more systematically across claims and practice areas. A principle is a \u201cfundamental truth or doctrine, as of law; a comprehensive rule or doctrine which furnishes a basis or origin for others.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

From the record the parties have put before the court, it\u2019s far from clear whether trademark law historically required a showing of willfulness before allowing a profits remedy. The Trademark Act of 1905 \u2013 the Lanham Act\u2019s statutory predecessor which many earlier cases interpreted and applied \u2013 did not mention such a requirement.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s true, as Fossil notes, that some courts proceeding before the 1905 Act, and even some later cases following that Act, did treat willfulness or something like it as a prerequisite for a profits award and rarely authorized profits for purely good-faith infringement. But Romag cites other cases that expressly rejected any such rule.<\/span><\/p>\n

The confusion doesn\u2019t end there. Other authorities advanced still different understandings about the relationship between mens rea and profits awards in trademark cases. And the vast majority of the cases both Romag and Fossil cite simply failed to speak clearly to the issue one way or another.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mens rea figured as an important consideration in awarding profits in pre-Lanham Act cases. This reflects the ordinary, transsubstantive principle that a defendant\u2019s mental state is relevant to assigning an appropriate remedy. That principle arises not only in equity, but across many legal contexts. It\u2019s a principle reflected in the Lanham Act\u2019s text, too, which permits greater statutory damages for certain willful violations than for other violations.<\/span><\/p>\n

And it is a principle long reflected in equity practice where district courts have often considered a defendant\u2019s mental state, among other factors, when exercising their discretion in choosing a fitting remedy. Given these traditional principles, the court has no doubt that a trademark defendant\u2019s mental state is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate.<\/span><\/p>\n

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff\u2019s trademark as a precondition<\/p>\n

Continue readingWillfulness of infringement as precondition to award<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,6,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trademark","category-intellectual-property","category-litigation","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3292"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3292\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3293,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3292\/revisions\/3293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}