Romag Fasteners v. Fossil

-
Patent Law.png

Argument: January 14, 2020

Petitioner Brief: Romag Fasteners, Inc.

Respondent Brief: Fossil, Inc., et al.

Decision: TBA

Court below: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Court below: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Can Fossil keep its profits after using counterfeit fasteners on its handbags?

In 2002, Fossil agreed to use Romag fasteners in Fossil’s handbags. In 2010, Romag discovered that Fossil handbags included counterfeit ROMAG branded fasteners.  

Romag v Fossil

The suit

Romag sued Fossil for trademark infringement, and a jury found that Fossil infringed Romag’s trademark rights.  The jury also concluded that Fossil recognized a risk that its Chinese suppliers may be using counterfeit fasteners. The jury awarded Romag about $6.8M of Fossil’s profits to prevent Fossil from profiting from the infringement and to deter future infringement.  

Willfulness

However, the lower courts held the law requires “willful” infringement to award profits.  Romag was not able to prove Fossil was actually aware of the infringing activity, or that Fossil intentionally shielded themselves from discovering the truth. Therefore, the lower courts concluded Fossil’s infringement was not “willful” and Romag was not entitled to the $6.8M of Fossil profits.  

Issue in the Supreme Court

This case will turn on whether willfulness is a threshold requirement for a trademark owner, such as Romag, to recover profits from an infringer. If the law requires willfulness, Fossil will not need to share its profits with Romag. If the law does not require willfulness, the lower courts may need to reconsider their decisions.  

The Lanham Act

Federal law in the United States prohibiting trademark infringement is codified in the “Lanham Act.”  Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act authorizes the recovery of profits in cases of trademark infringement.  Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act states:

When a violation under section 1125(a) or (d) of this title, or a willful violation under section 1125(c) of this title, shall have been established . . . the plaintiff shall be entitled . . . subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action.

The jury concluded that Fossil violated section 1125(a) by selling handbags that included counterfeit ROMAG branded fasteners. Sections 1125(d) (cyber piracy) and (c) (trademark dilution) are not at issue in this case. However, sections 1125(a), 1125(c) and 1125(d) are all referenced in section 1117(a).  Therefore, differences in how section 1117(a) refers to 1125(c) and 1125(d) may inform how to interpret the authorization to recover profits under section 1125(a).

Romag’s argument

Romag argues that there is no willfulness requirement in the statute. To the contrary, section 1117(a) states that only a violation of section 1125(c) must be willful to recover profits. This implies that a violation of section 1125(a) does not need to be willful to recover profits. The only restriction imposed by section 1117(a) is that any award of profits must be “subject to the principles of equity.” Romag argues this phrase just means courts have the flexibility to tailor profit awards based on all relevant circumstances, including the infringer’s degree of culpability and amount of the award.

Fossil’s argument

Fossil argues that historically, a violation of 1125(a) always required willfulness. The phrase “subject to the principles of equity” imports this historical willfulness requirement into the statute.  Furthermore, the legislative history gives no indication that the addition of the word “willful” in the Section 1125(c) context was intended to abrogate the historical willfulness requirement for Section 1125(c).

A note supporting Fossil’s view comes from a 2017 Supreme Court case, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods. There, Respondent argued Congress changed the meaning of one statute (28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)) when it amended another statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391). The Court held that when Congress intends to change the meaning of a statute, it provides a relatively clear indication of its intent to do so in the amended provision’s text.

In response, Romag contends that, historically, willfulness was not a uniformly applied threshold requirement to recovering profits. Courts utilized varying approaches and rationales for awarding profits.

Regional split

Lower courts are split on this issue. The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits do not require a willful violation of section 1125(a) to award profits. In those circuits, the infringer’s intent is just one of several factors in a flexible analysis.

The DC, First, Second, Eighth Ninth and Tenth Circuits require a willful violation of section 1125(a) before awarding profits. In those circuits, no profits are recoverable unless the infringer acted willfully.  

Design patents: a different context

In a different patent context — design patents — a patentee would be able to recover lost profits without proving willfulness. However, the recovery for infringement of design patents is not available as a “deterrent,” so the amount would have been substantially lower than what the trial court awarded to Romag in this case.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on January 14, 2019.

  Jacob_Baldinger_Headshot.jpg

Contributor

Jacob Baldinger is a partner at Weiss & Arons LLP in Spring Valley, NY, and advises on intellectual property procurement and enforcement.

 

Recent Reports:



fromSubscript Law Blog | Subscript Lawhttps://https://ift.tt/383RHum
Subscript Law
4 Curtis Terrace Montclair
NJ 07042
(201) 840-8182
https://ift.tt/2oX7jPi

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

California v. Texas (Argument November 10, 2020)

-
Image
Argument: November 10, 2020 Decision: TBA Petitioners’ Brief: California, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Texas, et al. Respondents’ Brief: Neill Hurley and John Nantz Respondents’ Brief: United States, et al. Opinion Below: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals   The Supreme Court Will Determine the Fate of the Affordable Care Act...Again Several individuals and a group of GOP-led states are leading another fight to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (ACA). They are attacking the Individual Mandate as invalid and then arguing the rest of the ACA falls with it.  The Supreme Court will hear the case on November 10, 2020 joined by its new conservative-leaning justice, Amy Coney Barrett. Background Congress designed the ACA to provide all Americans affordable access to health insurance. Without getting rid of the private insurers, however, the government had to help them keep premiums down.  The Individual Mandate was designed to control costs in the marketplace by...
Read more

Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

-
Image
Argument: March 3, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Seila Law Respondent Brief: CFPB (Supporting Seila Law) Amicus Curiae Brief: Paul Clement (defending CFPB’s position) Decision: TBA Opinion Below: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court to determine fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Two years after the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed a massive piece of consumer protection legislation. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, stating its goal “to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices.” The vote passed in both houses of Congress largely along party lines.  As part of this comprehensive legislation, Congress created a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is an executive agency responsible for regulating providers of a wide range of consumer financial services, as well as enforcing federal consumer financial protection...
Read more

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

-
Image
Argument: January 22, 2020 Petitioner Brief: Kendra Espinoza, et al. Respondent Brief: Montana Department of Revenue, et al. Decision: TBA Court below: Supreme Court of the State of Montana Montana faces Establishment Clause questions over a tax credit program Montana established a tax credit program that allows people to donate to a scholarship fund for students attending private schools. In return, the taxpayer receives a matching tax credit of up to $150. The scholarship fund provides scholarships to private school students, including those who attend religious private schools.      Montana’s Department of Revenue was tasked with administering the tax credit program. When it began working to carry out the program, it realized the program — as written by Montana’s legislature — came into conflict with the Montana Constitution.  The Montana Constitution includes a provision called the “Blaine Amendment.” The Blaine Amendment prohibits the state from u...
Read more