Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
140 S. Ct. 1492
SCOTUS2020Background
- Romag manufactured magnetic snap fasteners; Fossil licensed them for use in Fossil handbags but used Chinese factories that began employing counterfeit Romag fasteners.
- Romag sued Fossil alleging trademark infringement and false designation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
- A jury found infringement and that Fossil acted in "callous disregard" of Romag's rights but rejected a district-court instruction defining Fossil's conduct as "willful."
- Romag sought Fossil's profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); the district court denied profits citing Second Circuit precedent requiring willfulness for a profits award.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether § 1117(a) imposes a categorical willfulness prerequisite for awarding defendant profits; the Court held it does not and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) requires willful infringement before awarding defendant's profits | Romag: § 1117(a) allows profits for § 1125(a) violations without a willfulness prerequisite; courts may consider mental state but no categorical rule | Fossil: "Principles of equity" in § 1117(a) incorporates an equitable, categorical willfulness requirement for profits awards | The Court: No categorical willfulness prerequisite. Mental state is an important equitable consideration but not an absolute statutory condition on profits awards; vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (uses "principles of equity" to describe transsubstantive equitable doctrines guiding injunctive relief)
- Saxlehner v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 179 U.S. 42 (1900) (early decision discussing liability and remedies for unfair competition)
- Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641 (1915) (illustrates that equity did not uniformly require willfulness for profits in patent contexts)
- Lawrence-Williams Co. v. Societe Enfants Gombault et Cie, 52 F.2d 774 (6th Cir. 1931) (rejected a rigid willfulness prerequisite for profits in trademark cases)
- Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v. Horluck's, Inc., 51 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1931) (example of courts treating willfulness as a prerequisite in some trademark-accounting cases)
- Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co., 298 U.S. 448 (1936) (equitable principle that wrongdoers may be deprived of gains from misconduct)
- Wood v. Peffer, 55 Cal.App.2d 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942) (shows authority declining profits awards for innocent infringement)