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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| preliminary-injunction/no-likelihood-of-success | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural | |
| profits/doubling-to-deter | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. | preliminary-injunction/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. |
| /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | 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. | profits/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. |