In a January 20, 2014 ruling, Judge Donald E. Walter ruled that the willfulness requirement for the recovery of damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) does not apply to claims arising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Judge Walter wrote: “The issue of damages is controlled by the 1999 Amendment to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court can only presume that Congress knew what it was doing in drafting in the disjunctive the willfulness requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).” Since the Court had already dismissed the claims under § 1125(c) and only the § 1125(a) claim remained, the Court concluded that “the willfulness requirement does not apply,” and so “no evidence of willfulness need to be proven.”
for the Southern District of New York
Court Rules That Willfulness Not Required to Prove Damages Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
In a January 20, 2014 ruling, Judge Donald E. Walter ruled that the willfulness requirement for the recovery of damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) does not apply to claims arising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Judge Walter wrote: “The issue of damages is controlled by the 1999 Amendment to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court can only presume that Congress knew what it was doing in drafting in the disjunctive the willfulness requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).” Since the Court had already dismissed the claims under § 1125(c) and only the § 1125(a) claim remained, the Court concluded that “the willfulness requirement does not apply,” and so “no evidence of willfulness need to be proven.”
Labels:
11 Civ. 4187
,
Damages
,
Judge Walter
,
Trademark Infringement
,
Willfulness
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.