Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Romag Fasteners, Inc. (Romag) (plaintiff) entered into an agreement with Fossil Group, Inc. (Fossil) (defendant), under which Romag would sell fasteners to Fossil and Fossil would use the fasteners on products such as leather handbags. Romag learned that certain factories producing Fossil products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners and that Fossil was not taking the counterfeiting issue seriously. Romag sued Fossil in federal district court under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), a provision prohibiting the false or misleading use of a trademark. As part of the lawsuit, Romag sought the order of a profits award under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) in which Fossil would be required to give Romag the money it earned due to the trademark infringement. A jury found in favor of Romag on the trademark-infringement claim and found that Fossil had callously disregarded Romag’s trademark rights. However, the jury declined to find that Fossil acted willfully in violating Romag’s trademark. The district court denied the profits-remedy request. The district court explained that under circuit court precedent, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant violated a trademark willfully to obtain a profits award. Romag appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, and Romag appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gorsuch, J.)
Concurrence (Sotomayor, J.)
Concurrence (Alito, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
