Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., 604 U.S. 321

Dewberry Engineers owns the "Dewberry" trademark for real-estate development services.
Dewberry Group, a separate company owned by John Dewberry, used the "Dewberry" mark in violation of a prior settlement, providing services to affiliates who own property, but reporting no profits itself.
Dewberry Group’s affiliates received substantial profits, while the Group operated at a loss, supported by cash infusions from its owner.
Dewberry Engineers brought a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, winning on liability and seeking profits as damages.
The district court, affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, awarded nearly $43 million, combining profits from Dewberry Group and its affiliates as if they were a single entity due to their close economic relationship.
Dewberry Group challenged the profit award, specifically the inclusion of its affiliates’ profits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether profits of non-party affiliates can be disgorged as "defendant’s profits" under the Lanham Act	Affiliates’ profits should be included due to close relationship and to reflect "economic reality"	Only profits of the named defendant, Dewberry Group, are reachable; affiliates are separate entities	Only the defendant’s own profits may be awarded; affiliates’ profits excluded
Whether corporate veil-piercing is required to combine profits	Economic reality justifies treating group and affiliates as one	No showing of fraud or veil-piercing was made, so separateness must be respected	Veil-piercing not attempted; corporate separateness controls
Whether the Lanham Act’s "just-sum" provision lets courts supplement a profits award based on affiliates’ earnings	The just-sum provision allows consideration of affiliate profits for a just remedy	Court must start from defendant’s profits; just-sum provision not used below	Lower courts didn’t rely on just-sum; can't justify the award here
Can courts look beyond formal bookkeeping to calculate actual profits for disgorgement?	Courts can consider actual economic gains, even if profits are shifted to affiliates	Corporate formalities and separateness must control calculation	Court leaves this question open for remand

United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court recognizes statutory incorporation of corporate separateness unless veil-piercing applies.)
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (Affirms that separate corporate status must be respected even if affiliated by common ownership.)
Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l Inc., 591 U.S. 430 (Separately incorporated organizations are legally distinct units.)
Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (Trademark law aims to provide broad protection for registered marks.)
Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (Equity prevents wrongdoers from profiting by their misconduct in analogous disgorgement contexts.)
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (Court rejects attempts to exclude gains via anticipatory assignment to another party.)
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (Rejects attempts to assign income to avoid taxation, guiding approach to economic substance.)