PLI's inSecurities Podcast - How much in disgorgement!?
JONES DAY TALKS®: Consumer Protection Enforcement Changes Likely After SCOTUS AMG Decision
KT Sound Bytes Episode 1 | The Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Liu v. SEC
Episode 160 -- A Deep Dive into the Herbalife FCPA Settlement
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 346, Mike Skopets on Miller’s Summer 2017 FCPA Report
This Week in FCPA-Episode 56
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 332 Marc Bohn on the Kokesh Decision
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 145-SEC Enforcement of the FCPA, Part II
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 30-Interview with the FCPA Professor-Part 2
Dewberry Group, Inc., FKA Dewberry Capital Corp v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23-900, 604 U.S. (2025) - On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned a $43 million damages award arising out...more
In a unanimous (and unsurprising) decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court vacated an award of nearly $43 million in disgorged profits to a trademark infringement plaintiff because those profits were not attributable to the...more
The Supreme Court on February 26, 2025, overturned a nearly $43 million award granted in a decades long trademark dispute between two real estate companies. The unanimous ruling emphasized that under the Lanham Act section...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner in Dewberry Group Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., holding that a disgorgement of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act may...more
To plead, or not to plead. That is a question trademark infringement plaintiffs will need to carefully consider with their legal counsel when deciding which parties to name as defendants in a lawsuit and which legal arguments...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23-900, a case concerning corporate separateness and disgorgement awards for Lanham Act trademark infringement....more
In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not permit courts to disregard corporate identity when awarding damages for trademark infringement....more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a nearly $43 million award in a trademark dispute that raised the question of whether a defendant’s affiliates could be held liable for payment of a disgorged...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial regarding its trade dress infringement claim and that the plaintiff failed to prove that its...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy...more
In a trademark infringement and breach of contract case involving real estate companies with a shared name, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trademark owner, including...more
In a recent precedential opinion, Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, __ F.4th __ (3d Cir. 2021) (publication pending), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a $10.6 million trademark infringement...more
In a long-running trademark dispute between two charitable organizations, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the appellee did not preserve its challenge to the district court’s denial of summary judgment...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a denial of a jury trial demand in a trademark infringement lawsuit where only a claim of disgorgement of profits was at issue. JL Beverage Company, LLC v. Jim Beam...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful infringement to justify an award of defendant’s profits to the plaintiff. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a recent unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court brought some welcome clarity to the question of whether willfulness is required in order to recover an infringer’s profits under...more
Late last month, in a landmark decision heralded by brand owners, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners, Inc v Fossil Group, Inc that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - Willful infringement is no longer required for trademark owners to recover infringers' profits. In Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding circuit...more
On April 23, 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a unanimous opinion in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., clarifying that a Lanham Act provision does not require a plaintiff to prove that acts of infringement are...more
In its unanimous April 23, 2020 opinion in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc., the Supreme Court made clear once and for all that a successful trademark plaintiff is not required to establish that the defendant’s infringement...more
Under Section 1117(a) of the Trademark Act, courts may award the plaintiff's lost profits or the defendant's profits resulting from a violation of the statute. The Supreme Court decided today that while a defendant's mental...more
In finding a fair use defense and no “likelihood of confusion” in a cosmetics trademark infringement dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit also considered, as an issue of first impression, whether the Seventh...more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. to decide whether a showing of willfulness is necessary to obtain a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act....more
By way of a precedential decision published on April 23, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Sixth and Ninth Circuits in holding that trademark owners who seek disgorgement of the infringer’s profits in lieu of actual...more
Earlier this month, a federal jury in North Carolina hit Walmart with a $95.5 million verdict for its willful infringement of Variety Stores, Inc.’s “BACKYARD” trademarks. The jury awarded $45.5 million as a reasonable...more