Trademark violations manifest in varied forms. Direct infringement typically arises when a brand is misrepresented to consumers, such as counterfeit goods masquerading as authentic or marks that confuse brand identity. These cases often hinge on the clarity of the misrepresentation and the intent to deceive.
Indirect infringement introduces additional complexity. It involves third-party entities that enable or facilitate unauthorized use, such as manufacturers, distributors, or property owners. Establishing liability in such scenarios requires demonstrating awareness of the infringement. Courts approach these cases with caution, as the evidentiary burden is substantial. While indirect infringement can result in damages, it is less frequently pursued compared to direct cases.
The Legal Framework: Lanham Act and Enhanced Damages
The Lanham Act serves as a foundational element of U.S. trademark law, defining remedies for unauthorized use. In standard cases, plaintiffs may recover actual damages, the infringer’s profits, and legal expenses. This provides a structured basis for compensation.
Counterfeiting cases, however, often yield more severe penalties. Courts may impose treble damages - up to three times the actual losses - when an infringer deliberately uses a counterfeit mark. Statutory damages offer an alternative pathway, with fixed ranges from $1,000 to $2 million per violation, contingent on intent. These mechanisms underscore the gravity of counterfeiting and the intent to deter such activities.
Recent Trends: Courts Tighten the Rules
Recent judicial decisions have redefined how damages are calculated. The 2020 Romag ruling clarified that proving willfulness is not a prerequisite for recovering profits. This expanded liability for trademark holders, though courts continue to weigh intent in determining award amounts.
The 2025 Dewberry ruling further refined this approach by limiting disgorgement to the named defendant, excluding affiliated entities not involved in the litigation. These rulings reflect a judicial effort to balance accountability with fairness, avoiding excessive penalties while ensuring infringers do not benefit from their actions.
A Case in Point: Guardant Health’s $75M Verdict
The 2025 verdict against Natera for misleading advertising illustrates the scale of modern damages. Guardant Health received $75 million in actual damages, $42 million in profits, and $175.5 million in punitive damages. The court’s focus on deterrence highlights a broader trend: penalties are increasingly designed to render infringement financially unviable.
This shift signals a growing emphasis on equitable remedies. Courts are less inclined to dismiss claims based on the “unclean hands” doctrine, which previously allowed defendants to argue that the plaintiff’s misconduct justified reduced damages. Today, the priority is holding infringers accountable, irrespective of the plaintiff’s prior actions.
Implications for Businesses: Monitoring and Strategy
For enterprises, the priority is ensuring trademark enforcement aligns with financial outcomes. Proactive monitoring for potential conflicts and unauthorized use is essential. When disputes arise, familiarity with legal tools - such as treble damages or statutory awards - can significantly influence the result.
IP Defender employs advanced technology to track national trademark databases, identifying conflicts and infringements before they escalate. This proactive strategy not only mitigates legal risks but also safeguards financial interests in a dynamic market.
The significance of trademark protection has intensified as consumer behavior evolves. Businesses must adopt vigilant measures to defend their intellectual property. Through continuous surveillance, brands can secure their assets without relying on reactive tactics, fostering a more resilient and competitive position.