The Supreme Court has made it easier to get compensation in trademark infringement lawsuits.

In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. last Thursday, April 23, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs can be awarded a defendant’s profits without proving “willful” trademark infringement, ABA Journal reported. The unanimous decision resolved a split among circuit courts over whether profits can be awarded in cases in which a trademark infringer is found to have acted negligently, but not intentionally.

In 2002, Texas-based Fossil Group, parent company of Fossil Corporate Markets (asi/55145), signed an agreement with Connecticut-based Romag, which sells magnetic snaps that fasten wallets, handbags and other leather goods. Romag later sued after learning that the factories Fossil worked with in China to make its products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners. Although a jury sided with Romag, it said the company hadn’t proved that Fossil’s trademark infringement was “willful,” subsequently refusing to grant Romag’s request of $6.8 million in profits, The National Law Review reported.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a trademark infringement plaintiff doesn’t have to show willful infringement by the defendant to obtain an award of profits. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the opinion. https://t.co/CeyQDfFoUO #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/FMtOmBxLSf

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) April 23, 2020

Referring to the Lanham Act – the federal statute that governs trademarks, service marks and unfair competition – Justice Neil Gorsuch said the act requires “willfulness” to win a defendant’s profits for trademark dilution, but not trademark infringement. “[W]e do not doubt that a trademark defendant’s mental state is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate. But acknowledging that much is a far cry from insisting on the inflexible precondition to recovery Fossil advances,” Gorsuch wrote in the opinion of the court.

Trademark infringement has been a hot topic in the promotional products industry over the years. Although the barrier to compensation has been lowered, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see more lawsuits, according to Larry Nodine, managing partner of Ballard Spahr’s law office in Atlanta. “This simply injects more uncertainty into cases and gives plaintiffs more leverage to obtain settlements,” Nodine told Counselor. “This may elevate the level of care that’s required to prevent counterfeiting. If you’re a manufacturer, you’ll want to increase your due diligence to avoid trademark infringement in all parts of the supply chain.”