shutterstock_96721225_steve_heap
15 January 2020TrademarksRory O'Neill

SCOTUS grapples with ‘wilfulness’ in TM infringement

US Supreme Court justices presiding over a closely-watched case are so far struggling with the notion of “wilfulness” as a requirement for awarding profits in trademark infringement cases.

The court yesterday, January 14, heard oral arguments in Romag Fasteners v Fossil, which centres on whether courts can award profits as a remedy for trademark infringement where it has not found that the infringement was wilful.

Romag is set to have major implications for brand owners, said Mark Sommers, partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner.

“Assuming the court rules that wilfulness is required to obtain profits, trademark owners will be left to establish the notoriously high standard of wilful infringement,” Sommers said.

“If the court removes the wilfulness gatekeeper and opens profits disgorgement as the equities so dictate, then profit awards become a more viable and workable option in trademark cases and will presumably serve as a greater deterrent and, of course, settlement motivator,” he explained.

Sommers said the justices seemed to struggle with the lack of clarity surrounding the notion of willful infringement.

“Many justices, including Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, were concerned over the lack of a clear definition of wilfulness, with district courts having inconsistently interpreted that word differently over two centuries of case law.”

Sommers said that, in his opinion, both side’s efforts at defining the term “failed to abate the concerns shared throughout the bench”.

Justice Breyer suggested the parties were “making much ado about nothing”, Sommers said. This was in light of trial courts having statutory discretion to increase or decrease profits awards regardless of any “wilfulness” requirement.

“The parties disagreed on the application of this provision, but Justice Breyer’s questions might signal one possible direction of a ruling—or a concurrence/dissent if the majority does not address such statutory language,” Sommers said.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today's top stories:

IBM and Samsung accrue nearly 16,000 US patents in 2019

Airbus shoots down Chuck Yeager complaint

Tiffany victorious over namesake beautician at UKIPO

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Trademarks
10 January 2020   The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week in a key dispute that is likely to have ramifications for what remedies courts can apply for trademark infringement.
Trademarks
24 April 2020   Yesterday’s US Supreme Court ruling in Romag v Fossil is the latest effort to erase categorical rules on remedies for IP infringement, lawyers have told WIPR.