Source: cases/15usc1125/f3d-933-202-4-pillar-dynasty-v-new-york-and-co.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_933/0202_01/index.html
The jury found that NY & C had infringed Reflex's trademark.
To dispel any doubts as to this question, we write to clarify that, in our Circuit, a plaintiff need not establish actual consumer confusion to recover lost profits under the Lanham Act.
Considering the totality of the factors identified by the District Court as the basis for its decision, we will not disturb its determination that Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiffs' trademark.
Nevertheless, applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review that governs such rulings, we conclude that the District Court acted within the permissible bounds of its discretion by not doing so here.
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) casedsl 1.2 case /f3d/933/0202-01 name 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co. cite 933 F.3d 202 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit date 2019-08-08 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_933/0202_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl sha1=651285235724a7733a70967b5cacd921f67f3ed7 chars=42338 opinion op : panel by Carney @23..42338 controlling party p1 : New York & Company, Inc. and New York & Company Stores, Inc. count c1 : Velocity trademark infringement ? role: the opinion never cites § 1125(a); it speaks of a "trademark infringement case brought under the Lanham Act" on a registered mark and decides only remedies under § 1117(a) (its one § 1125 cite is to subsection (c), in a footnote). Recorded as applied on the assumption that the unspecified Lanham Act counts included § 43(a); a curator may prefer to move this file to the § 1114 / § 1117 side law 15usc1125 (a) role applied posture civil trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act (registered mark); jury verdict of infringement not challenged on appeal; district judge's willfulness finding and award of defendants' stipulated gross profits affirmed (actual confusion not required for profits); removal of trebling affirmed on cross-appeal; attorney's fees and prejudgment interest vacated and remanded for the Octane Fitness standard result mixed element likely-confusion : satisfied [proved] decider jury review none party p1 count c1 route _whole pattern retailer's house-brand activewear line using the plaintiff's registered one-word mark for the same kind of goods fact @4672..4817 [supports] | He testified that, at some point in 2015, a potential customer came to his office and asked him if he had licensed the "Velocity" mark to NY & C. fact @5122..5328 [supports] | In his view, Defendants were selling the "exact" same type of products as his company; marketing them to the same demographic groups at a similar price; and unlawfully using the Velocity trademark to do so. fact @14076..14222 [supports] | Here, in contrast, the District Court reasonably found the similarities between Defendants' products and the "Velocity" trademark to be "blatant." held @7377..7437 | The jury found that NY & C had infringed Reflex's trademark. ? guard: G2-history-held the block records the jury's finding (decider jury, review none); the sentence reporting the verdict is the correct held for a finding below gloss Infringement was found by the jury and was not challenged in the post-trial motions or on appeal; the Second Circuit does not review likelihood of confusion. Recorded as a finding below, not as this court's ruling. element relief : satisfied [proved] decider trial-judge review affirmed party p1 count c1 route profits pattern disgorgement of a willful infringer's stipulated gross profits on a deterrence rationale, no proof of actual confusion, trebling withdrawn fact @35697..35847 [supports] | It is uncontested, however, that NY & C continued to sell the allegedly infringing products after the lawsuit was filed and they had been duly served. fact @14223..14394 [supports] | Defendants provided no evidence to explain or justify their failure to cease selling the infringing sportswear once they received actual notice of Plaintiffs' allegations. fact @5955..6144 [supports] | After Hedvat concluded his testimony, the parties stipulated on the record that Defendants' gross profits from the sale of products bearing the NY & C Velocity trademark were $1,864,337.29. fact @11750..11866 [cuts-against absent] | At trial, Plaintiffs presented no direct evidence of Defendants' state of mind in using the "NY & C Velocity" brand. fact @5515..5702 [cuts-against] | Hedvat conceded that Reflex's sales of Velocity products actually increased between 2014 and 2016, including during the period after which he discovered NY & C's allegedly infringing use. rule @17367..17553 | To dispel any doubts as to this question, we write to clarify that, in our Circuit, a plaintiff need not establish actual consumer confusion to recover lost profits under the Lanham Act. held @16590..16790 | Considering the totality of the factors identified by the District Court as the basis for its decision, we will not disturb its determination that Defendants willfully infringed Plaintiffs' trademark. held @26866..27082 | Nevertheless, applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review that governs such rulings, we conclude that the District Court acted within the permissible bounds of its discretion by not doing so here. gloss Profits award under § 1117(a) affirmed: willfulness (then a Second Circuit prerequisite under George Basch) found by the district judge with an advisory jury and upheld for clear error; actual confusion is not a prerequisite on the deterrence rationale; full gross profits within discretion. Enhanced (treble) profits denied and affirmed; fees and prejudgment interest vacated and remanded. The willfulness prerequisite was later rejected in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (2020), which is not part of this opinion.