The Briefing: Shedding Light on ‘Willful Blindness’: Brandy Melville v Redbubble
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's (Seventh Circuit) decision in Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, 124 F.4th 441 (7th Cir. 2024), has drawn attention to the interplay between federal and state law in...more
On February 26, 2025, in Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a $43 million damages award for trademark infringement, ruling that the lower court improperly conflated the defendant with...more
The principle of “corporate separateness” – the idea that corporations are separate juridical entities and that stock ownership generally “will not create liability beyond the assets of the [corporation]” – is “deeply...more
In a potential shakeup for corporate liability, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument this year on whether a real estate developer’s corporate affiliates should be responsible for a $46.6 million trademark infringement...more
Crocs, Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined whether a district court erred in dismissing false advertising claims...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 April, we discussed oral arguments at the Supreme Court for Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc., a case in which the Supreme Court considered the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act (“Act”) for...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act does not apply to infringing use of a trademark outside of the United States. In doing so, the Court overturned a damages award of over $90 million associated with...more
On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. (“Abitron et al.”) v. Hetronic International, Inc. (“Hetronic”) on an issue it has not squarely addressed in seven...more
The United States Supreme Court has a new opportunity to look at whether a U.S. trademark owner can recover damages for infringing uses of the owner’s mark occurring outside the United States....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
Signed into law in July of 1946, the Lanham Act has, for 75 years, governed U.S. trademark, servicemark, and unfair competition matters. In this edition of the Jones Day Talks Women in IP series, Meredith Wilkes, Anna Raimer,...more
Trademark law aficianados have followed the progress of Romag Fasteners v. Fossil from District Court to the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court and back again. We previously blogged about the Supreme Court decision here. In...more
Jones Day's Meredith Wilkes and Anna Raimer discuss 2020's most significant developments in trademark law and preview what's to come in 2021, including possible progress in Washington on the highly anticipated Trademark...more
Nearly a year ago, we previewed the U.S. Supreme Court’s then-upcoming decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc.—a case set to provide some much needed clarity on the question of whether plaintiffs in trademark...more
The Second Circuit vacates Tiffany's summary judgment win over Costco and remands for a trial over the use of the word "Tiffany" in advertising for engagement rings. On August 17, 2020, in Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on April 23, 2020, by unanimously holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., et al. that a brand owner is not required to prove that a trademark infringer acted...more
In U.S. trademark litigation, the focus is typically on injunctive relief: The plaintiff wants the defendant to cease use of the infringing mark before the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed or the strength of the mark is...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
On April 23, the US Supreme Court resolved a six-six circuit split over whether a defendant must have willfully infringed a trademark for a plaintiff to obtain as a remedy the infringer’s profits. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a decision some believe may generate more trademark infringement litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a trademark owner does not have to prove a defendant acted willfully to receive a profits remedy in...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), resolved a circuit court split by confirming that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement...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