{"id":554,"date":"2020-04-23T15:12:16","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T19:12:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/?p=554"},"modified":"2022-02-03T05:48:09","modified_gmt":"2022-02-03T10:48:09","slug":"the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

For years, the federal courts of appeals have been split on an issue of critical importance to\u00a0liti<\/span>gants<\/span>\u00a0under the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act, namely, whether a prevailing plaintiff seeking an accounting of the defendant\u2019s profits under Section 35(a) of the Act must prove willful misconduct by the defendant<\/span>\u00a0as a prerequisite for that remedy. In\u00a0Romag<\/span>\u00a0Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.<\/em>, No. 18-1233, 2020\u00a0WL<\/span>\u00a01942012 (U.S.\u00a0Apr<\/span>. 23, 2020), the Supreme Court resolved that split in favor of plaintiffs, holding that a categorical rule requiring such a showing could not be reconciled with the statute\u2019s express text and was also inconsistent with the equitable nature of the remedy. As the most consequential interpretation of the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act from the Court in years, the opinion could give plaintiffs increased leverage in pursuing monetary relief under the Act.<\/p>\n

The Differing Rules Governing Awards of Actual Damages and\u00a0Accountings<\/span>\u00a0of Profits<\/h3>\n

A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act can pursue several types of monetary relief, but the two most important are the\u00a0legal<\/em>\u00a0remedy of the plaintiff\u2019s actual damages and the\u00a0equitable<\/em>\u00a0remedy of an accounting of the defendant\u2019s profits. Although courts and litigants alike often confuse and conflate the two, they are distinguishable and subject to differing<\/span>\u00a0rules that merit careful consideration. For example, although a prevailing plaintiff may receive<\/span>\u00a0an award of its actual damages upon a showing of liability, proving the quantum of those damages can be difficult, especially if the plaintiff cannot introduce evidence of a material amount of confusion or deception caused by the defendant\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the mechanics of an accounting of a defendant\u2019s profits generally work in favor of a prevailing plaintiff. Under Section 35(a)\u2019s express terms, such a plaintiff must prove the defendant\u2019s \u201csales only.\u201d At that point, the defendant has the opportunity to apportion the revenues from those sales between lawful and unlawful sources, as well as to demonstrate permissible<\/span>\u00a0deduction from them. If it fails to carry its burden of proof with respect to both those showings, it risks an accounting of the entirety of its sales.\u00a0See generally\u00a0WMS<\/span>\u00a0Gaming Inc. v.\u00a0WPC<\/span>\u00a0Prods.\u00a0Ltd<\/span>.<\/em>, 542 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0601 (7th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2008). A possible accounting of its profits therefore can present a greater concern to a defendant accused of having violated the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act than the risk of an award of the plaintiff\u2019s actual damages.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, because an accounting is an equitable remedy, courts have rarely granted it as a matter of course, but instead have conditioned it on a variety of considerations. The most common of these is the willfulness of the defendant\u2019s unlawful conduct, which, as set forth below, historically has received varying degrees of weight, depending on the circuit in which the issue is addressed.<\/p>\n

The Historical Split in the Circuits<\/h3>\n

Although judicial disagreement over the prerequisites for\u00a0accountings<\/span>\u00a0is long-standing, three relatively recent opinions from three different circuits demonstrate the scope of that\u00a0disa<\/span>greement<\/span>\u00a0and the variety of approaches historically taken by federal courts in addressing the role of willfulness in the accounting inquiry.<\/p>\n

For example, the Second Circuit held that willfulness is a bright-line prerequisite for an accounting, and it therefore denied that remedy to a plaintiff unable to make that showing.\u00a0See Pillar Dynasty\u00a0LLC<\/span>\u00a0v. New York & Co.<\/em>, 933 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0202, 212-14 (2d<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2019). That outcome was consistent with the traditional rule in other circuits, which also have required showings of willfulness<\/span>\u00a0for\u00a0accountings<\/span>.\u00a0See, e.g., Fifty-Six Hope Road Music,\u00a0Ltd<\/span>. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.<\/em>, 778 F.3d<\/span>\u00a01059, 1073-74 (9th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2015);\u00a0W. Diversified\u00a0Servs<\/span>., Inc. v.\u00a0Hyundai<\/span>\u00a0Motor Am., Inc.<\/em>, 427 F.3d<\/span>\u00a01269, 12-72-73 (10th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2005);\u00a0Minn. Pet Breeders, Inc. v.\u00a0Schell<\/span>\u00a0&\u00a0Kampeter<\/span>, Inc.<\/em>, 41 F.3d<\/span>\u00a01242, 1247 (8th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 1994);\u00a0ALPO<\/span>\u00a0Pet Foods, Inc. v.\u00a0Ralston<\/span>\u00a0Purina<\/span>\u00a0Co.,<\/em>\u00a0913 F.2d<\/span>\u00a0958, 968 (D.C.\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 1990).<\/p>\n

In contrast, the Fifth Circuit reiterated its test for an accounting, under which willfulness is only one of six nonexclusive factors:<\/p>\n

(1) whether the defendant had the intent to confuse or deceive, (2) whether sales have been diverted, (3) the adequacy of other remedies, (4) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting his rights, (5) the public interest in making the misconduct unprofitable, and (6) whether it is a case of palming off.<\/p>\n

Retractable\u00a0Techs<\/span>., Inc. v.\u00a0Becton<\/span>\u00a0Dickinson<\/span>\u00a0& Co.<\/em>, 919 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0869, 876 (5th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2019) (quoting\u00a0Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I\u00a0Ltd<\/span>.<\/em>, 155 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0526, 554 (5th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 1998),\u00a0abrogated on other grounds by\u00a0TrafFix<\/span>\u00a0Devices, Inc. v.\u00a0Mktg<\/span>. Displays, Inc.<\/em>, 532 U.S. 23 (2001)). This\u00a0multifac<\/span>tored<\/span>\u00a0test is consistent with those historically applied by Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits.\u00a0See La\u00a0Quinta<\/span>\u00a0Corp. v. Heartland Props.\u00a0LLC<\/span><\/em>, 603 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0327, 334 (6th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2010);\u00a0Synergistic Int\u2019l,\u00a0LLC<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0Korman<\/span><\/em>, 470 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0162, 175 (4th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2006);\u00a0Banjo Buddies, Inc. v.\u00a0Renosky<\/span><\/em>, 399 F.3d<\/span>\u00a0168, 165 (3d<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2005).<\/p>\n

Finally, an Eleventh Circuit opinion suggested that willfulness might be a prerequisite only if the plaintiff pursued that theory under one of three available rationales: \u201cAn accounting of a defendant\u2019s profits is appropriate where: (1) the defendant\u2019s conduct was willful and\u00a0delib<\/span>erate<\/span>, (2) the defendant was unjustly enriched, or (3) it is necessary to deter future conduct.\u201d\u00a0PlayNation<\/span>\u00a0Play\u00a0Sys<\/span>., Inc. v.\u00a0Velex<\/span>\u00a0Corp.<\/em>, 924 F.3d<\/span>\u00a01159, 1170 (11th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2019). In recognizing at least some circumstances under which an accounting is appropriate even in the absence of willful misconduct by the defendant, the court applied a rule consistent with that in the First and Seventh Circuits.\u00a0See\u00a0Tamko<\/span>\u00a0Roofing Prods., Inc. v. Ideal Roofing Co.<\/em>, 282 F.3d<\/span>\u00a023, 36 (1st<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 2002);\u00a0Roulo<\/span>\u00a0v.\u00a0Russ<\/span>\u00a0Berrie<\/span>\u00a0& Co.<\/em>, 886 F.2d<\/span>\u00a0931, 940 (7th<\/span>\u00a0Cir<\/span>. 1989).<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Opinion in\u00a0Romag<\/span>\u00a0Fasteners<\/em><\/h3>\n

The split in the circuits concerning the proper role of willfulness in the accounting inquiry described above led the Supreme Court to review the issue in\u00a0Romag<\/span>\u00a0Fasteners<\/em>, a case brought by a manufacturer of magnetic snap fasteners, which accused the defendant of manufacturing handbags with fasteners bearing imitations of the plaintiff\u2019s mark. Following trial on the plaintiff\u2019s claims, an advisory jury recommended an accounting of $90,759 of the defendant\u2019s profits under an unjust enrichment theory and $6,704,046.00 of the defendant\u2019s profits under a deterrence<\/span>\u00a0theory. In its recommendation, the jury found that, although the lead defendant had acted with \u201ccallous disregard\u201d of the plaintiff\u2019s rights, it had not acted willfully. Based solely on the second of these findings, the Federal Circuit held in an application of Second Circuit law that the plaintiff was not entitled to an accounting.<\/p>\n

After twice agreeing to review the question presented by the plaintiff\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari\u2014\u201c[w]hether<\/span>, under section 35 of the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer\u2019s profits\u201d\u2014the Supreme Court finally answered that question in the negative. It cited several bases for its holding.<\/p>\n

The Court first quoted the express text of Section 35(a), which provides in relevant part that:<\/p>\n

When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, a violation under section [43(a)] or [43(d)] of this title, or a willful violation under section [43(c)] of this title, shall have been established<\/span>\u00a0in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be\u00a0enti<\/span>tled<\/span>, . . . and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant\u2019s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action.<\/p>\n

15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1117(a) (2018). Referencing the express requirement of willfulness for monetary relief in an action for likely dilution under Section 43(c) of the Act, the Court noted that \u201c[the plaintiff] alleged and proved a violation of [Section 43(a)], a provision establishing a cause of action for the false or misleading use of trademarks. And in cases like that, the statutory\u00a0lan<\/span>guage<\/span>\u00a0has\u00a0never<\/em>\u00a0required a showing of willfulness to win a defendant\u2019s profits.\u201d 2020\u00a0WL<\/span>\u00a01942012, at *2. It further observed that it did not \u201cusually read into statutes words that\u00a0aren<\/span>\u2019t there. It\u2019s a temptation we are doubly careful to avoid when Congress has (as here) included the term in question elsewhere in the very same statutory provision.\u201d Id. That was not the defendants\u2019 only problem from a statutory interpretation perspective, however. Instead, the Court held, \u201c[t]he\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act speaks often and expressly about mental states,\u201d which it concluded made \u201c[t]he absence of any such standard in the provision before us . . . seem[] all the more telling.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court was equally unsympathetic to the defendant\u2019s argument that the traditional practice of courts of equity requiring showings of willfulness rose \u201cto the level of a \u2018principle of equity\u2019 the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act carries forward.\u201d Id. at *3. The Court rejected that \u201ccurious suggestion\u201d because \u201cit would require us to assume that Congress intended to incorporate a willfulness requirement<\/span>\u00a0here obliquely while it prescribed\u00a0mens\u00a0rea<\/span><\/em>\u00a0conditions expressly elsewhere throughout the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act\u201d and because \u201c[t]he phrase \u2018principles of equity\u2019\u00a0doesn<\/span>\u2019t readily bring to mind a substantive rule about\u00a0mens\u00a0rea<\/span><\/em>\u00a0from a discrete domain like trademark law.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em>\u00a0Of equal significance, the Court questioned the premise of the argument itself, concluding that \u201c[f]rom the record the parties have put before us, it\u2019s far from clear whether trademark law historically<\/span>\u00a0required a showing of willfulness before allowing a profits remedy.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

In the final analysis, the Court held, \u201cthe most we can say with certainty is this.\u00a0Mens\u00a0rea<\/span><\/em>\u00a0figured as an important consideration in awarding profits in pre-Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act cases. This reflects<\/span>\u00a0the ordinary,\u00a0transsubstantive<\/span>\u00a0principle that a defendant\u2019s mental state is relevant to assigning an appropriate remedy.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em>\u00a0at *4. Thus, \u201c[g]iven<\/span>\u00a0these traditional principles, we do not doubt that a trademark defendant\u2019s mental state is a highly important consideration in\u00a0determin<\/span>ing<\/span>\u00a0whether an award of profits is appropriate. But acknowledging that much is a far cry from insisting on the inflexible precondition to recovery [the defendant] advances.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em>\u00a0Although it might be true that \u201cstouter restraints on profits awards are needed to deter \u2018baseless\u2019 trademark suits,\u201d it was up to Congress to enact those restraints.\u00a0Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s rejection of willfulness as a bright-line prerequisite for an accounting<\/span>\u00a0of profits under the\u00a0Lanham<\/span>\u00a0Act is unlikely to dispose of that consideration altogether. On the contrary, the degree of a defendant\u2019s willfulness likely will continue to inform the accounting<\/span>\u00a0inquiry, perhaps in a manner consistent with its role in the\u00a0multifactored<\/span>\u00a0tests applied by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits. As the Court observed on this point, \u201cwe do not doubt that a trademark defendant\u2019s mental state is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the opinion promises to work a sea change in jurisdictions such as the Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits, in which the inherent difficulty of proving actual damages and the frequent unavailability of the accounting remedy historically have favored defendants. Potential defendants therefore should expect the risk of facing lawsuits in those circuits to increase in the opinion\u2019s wake, including suits brought by contingency-fee counsel willing to roll the dice on a monetary judgment.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Related People<\/h3>\n

Theodore H. Davis Jr.
\n<\/strong>Partner
\nAtlanta, GA
\nt 404.815.6534
\ntdavis@kilpatricktownsend.com<\/p>\n

Joseph Petersen
\n<\/strong>Partner
\nMenlo Park, CA
\nt 650.614.6427
\njpetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com<\/p>\n

Rita Weeks
\n<\/strong>Trademark Of Counsel
\nNew York, NY
\nt 212.775.8777
\nrweeks@kilpatricktownsend.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For years, the federal courts of appeals have been split on an issue of critical importance to\u00a0litigants\u00a0under the\u00a0Lanham\u00a0Act, namely, whether a prevailing plaintiff seeking an accounting of the defendant\u2019s profits under Section 35(a) of the Act must prove willful misconduct by the defendant\u00a0as a prerequisite for that remedy. In\u00a0Romag\u00a0Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[131],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alerts"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"For years, the federal courts of appeals have been split on an issue of critical importance to\u00a0litigants\u00a0under the\u00a0Lanham\u00a0Act, namely, whether a prevailing plaintiff seeking an accounting of the defendant\u2019s profits under Section 35(a) of the Act must prove willful misconduct by the defendant\u00a0as a prerequisite for that remedy. In\u00a0Romag\u00a0Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Kilpatrick\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ella Chen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ella Chen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ella Chen\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1909,\"articleSection\":[\"Alerts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kilpatrick\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc\",\"name\":\"Ella Chen\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\\\/en\\\/author\\\/ella\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick","og_description":"For years, the federal courts of appeals have been split on an issue of critical importance to\u00a0litigants\u00a0under the\u00a0Lanham\u00a0Act, namely, whether a prevailing plaintiff seeking an accounting of the defendant\u2019s profits under Section 35(a) of the Act must prove willful misconduct by the defendant\u00a0as a prerequisite for that remedy. In\u00a0Romag\u00a0Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/","og_site_name":"Kilpatrick","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00","author":"Ella Chen","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ella Chen","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Ella Chen","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/#\/schema\/person\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc"},"headline":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act","datePublished":"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/"},"wordCount":1909,"articleSection":["Alerts"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/","url":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/","name":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act - Kilpatrick","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T19:12:16+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-03T10:48:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/#\/schema\/person\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/the-supreme-court-abrogates-willfulness-as-a-bright-line-prerequisite-for-accountings-of-profits-under-the-lanham-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court Abrogates Willfulness as a Bright-Line Prerequisite for Accountings of Profits Under the Lanham Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/","name":"Kilpatrick","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/#\/schema\/person\/98e5a775a188d773ca961dcf888895fc","name":"Ella Chen","url":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/author\/ella\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=554"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5962,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/554\/revisions\/5962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kilpatricktownsend.jp\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}