AND · 15usc1125:relief
Romag (2020): willfulness is not an absolute prerequisite to profits for §1125(a), though mental state remains important in equity. Do not transplant §1125(c) famous-mark/dilution requirements or §1125(d) cybersquatting into subsection (a).
Exact element source
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [870:988] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| preliminary-injunction provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether interim injunctive relief is warranted. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| profits provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether and how the defendant's profits are awarded or enhanced. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co. — 933 F.3d 202 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. — 539 U.S. 23 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Remedy-specific proof | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law The appellate court declined to reconsider the other injunction factors after the likelihood-of-success failure. Liability and permanent relief remain unresolved. | no-likelihood-of-success | But our cases warn that a court must not issue a preliminary injunction where the movant presents no likelihood of merits success.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [3233:3363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Thus, the court's refusal to enter an injunction here could not amount to an abuse of its discretion. We AFFIRM.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [14359:14471] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
| 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. N.Y. & Co. — 933 F.3d 202 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Remedy-specific proof | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); party: New York & Company, Inc. and New York & Company Stores, Inc.; count: Velocity trademark infringement; subject: party=New York & Company, Inc. and New York & Company Stores, Inc.; count=Velocity trademark infringement 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. | disgorgement of a willful infringer's stipulated gross profits on a deterrence rationale, no proof of actual confusion, trebling withdrawn | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [35697:35847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.Defendants provided no evidence to explain or justify their failure to cease selling the infringing sportswear once they received actual notice of Plaintiffs' allegations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [14223:14394] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [5955:6144] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.At trial, Plaintiffs presented no direct evidence of Defendants' state of mind in using the "NY & C Velocity" brand.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [11750:11866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [5515:5702] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [17367:17553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [16590:16790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/0202-01; Unicode character offsets [26866:27082] (end exclusive); SHA-256 808184e7a4f08f78dc6a871a04a50ff72f289fe9abf7a166064db0543d9edc8e. |
| Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. — 539 U.S. 23 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Remedy-specific proof | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / proceduralThe reserved remedy question is not an element of base liability and does not establish either entitlement or ineligibility for profits in other cases. | doubling-to-deter | We thus have no occasion to consider whether the Lanham Act permitted an award of double petitioner’s profits.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [23274:23384] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242. |