Resolving the “Willfulness” Conundrum: Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a Case Note
| dc.contributor.author | Mannis, Jack | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-12-22T19:12:59Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-12-22T19:12:59Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-12-22 | |
| dc.description | 32 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Part I of this Note traces the history and purpose of the Lanham Act. Part II discusses the split among circuit courts, both before and after the addition of the 1999 amendment, regarding the willfulness requirement. Part III discusses Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the case’s history, as well as the parties’ arguments before the Supreme Court. Part IV discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision to decline to adopt a bright-line rule requiring a finding of willfulness before awarding a defendant’s profits, and instead to adopt a factor-based approach, whereby willfulness is one of several important factors to consider. Finally, Part V unpacks the policy implications that resulted from the Supreme Court’s decision to adopt a factor-based approach and how such a decision ultimately serves the broader purposes of the Lanham Act. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 99 Or. L. Rev. 207 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0196-2043 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/25975 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Oregon School of Law | en_US |
| dc.rights | All Rights Reserved. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Lanham Act | en_US |
| dc.subject | Trademark law | en_US |
| dc.title | Resolving the “Willfulness” Conundrum: Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a Case Note | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |