October Term 2019 · Docket 18-1233
Must trademark owners prove willfulness to recover profits?
Trademark owners seek profit awards without proving willfulness. Infringers argue willfulness is a strict legal requirement.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Blatt argued the Lanham Act allows profit awards under equity principles.
Mr. Katyal argued Fossil ignores Congress's words and historical context.
Justice Sotomayor asked if equity covers reckless or callous disregard.
Justice Breyer questioned the applicability of willfulness standards.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether the Lanham Act requires proof of willfulness before courts award profits. Romag Fasteners argues equity principles allow profit awards for innocent infringement. Fossil contends willfulness is a mandatory precondition for such remedies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 14, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Romag Fasteners wants courts to award profits without proving willfulness.
Fossil wants courts to deny profit awards unless willfulness is proven.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
What each side says
Romag Fasteners argues equity principles permit profit awards for good-faith infringement.
Fossil argues the statute requires willfulness as an absolute precondition for profits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if equity sustains awards for innocent infringement.
Justice Breyer questioned why willfulness might not apply in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
Why it matters
This dispute defines the scope of trademark remedies. It determines whether innocent infringers face profit liability. The outcome shapes enforcement standards for brand protection nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 55-55
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 41-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 41-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.