Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 21, 2025 | Supreme Court Sides With FDA on Flavored Vape Denials

Supreme Court Rules Trademark Infringement Damages Include Only Named Defendant’s Profits

In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., 604 U.S. __ (2025), the U.S. Supreme
Court held that in awarding the “defendant’s profits” to the prevailing plaintiff in a
trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, a court can award only profits
ascribable to the “defendant” itself.

Facts of the Case

As the Supreme Court explained in its option, the trademark dispute involved two
unrelated real-estate companies with the word “Dewberry” in their names. Dewberry
Engineers successfully sued Dewberry Group—a competitor real-estate development
company—for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Dewberry Group provides
services needed to generate rental income from properties owned by separately
incorporated affiliates. That income goes on the affiliates’ books; Dewberry Group receives
only agreed-upon fees. And those fees are apparently set at less than market rates—the
Group has operated at a loss for decades, surviving only through cash infusions by John
Dewberry, who owns both the Group and the affiliates.

To reflect that “economic reality,” the District Court treated Dewberry Group and its
affiliates “as a single corporate entity” for purposes of calculating a profits award.
Accordingly, the District Court totaled the affiliates’ real-estate profits from the years
Dewberry Group infringed, producing an award of nearly $43 million.

A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Reiterating the “‘economic reality’ of
Dewberry Group’s relationship with its affiliates,” the majority agreed with the District
Court’s treatment of all the companies “as a single corporate entity.” According to the
appeals court, holding otherwise would give businesses a “blueprint for using corporate
formalities to insulate their infringement from financial consequences.”

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court disagreed. It unanimously held that the court could award only profits
properly ascribable to the defendant itself. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “the statutory text
authorizing a profits award for trademark infringement offers no support for the approach
the courts below took.”

In reaching its decision, the Court found that because the term “defendant” is not specially
defined, it bears its usual legal meaning. Pursuant to Black’s Dictionary, “defendant” is “the
party against whom relief or recovery is sought in an action or suit.”

In this case, the defendant is the entity named in Dewberry Engineers’ complaint as liable
for infringing the “Dewberry” trademark. “And that entity is Dewberry Group alone,”

Justice Kagan wrote. She further emphasized that the Engineers chose not to add the
Group’s property-owning affiliates as defendants. “Accordingly, the affiliates’ profits are
not the (statutorily disgorgable) ‘defendant’s profits’ as ordinarily understood,” she added.

The Court went on to find that background principles of corporate law support its holding.
Justice Kagan noted that the justices “have often read federal statutes to incorporate” state-
law principles that respect corporate identity, and that under those rules “[i]t is long
settled … that separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct
legal rights and responsibilities.”

The Court did not address whether or how the courts could have used the just-sum
provision to support a profits award; whether or how courts can look behind a defendant’s
tax or accounting records to consider a defendant’s true financial gain even without relying
on the just-sum provision; and whether veil-piercing remains an available option.

As Justice Kagan noted, “All we hold today is that the courts below were wrong to treat
Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single entity in calculating the ‘defendant’s profits.’”
The justices left it to the lower courts to address any new theories.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 21, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s execut...

Read More
SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 6, 2025

In Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under ...

Read More
Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025

In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising