Dewberry Group, fka Dewberry Capital v. Dewberry Engineers
In brief
Under the Lanham Act, a trademark plaintiff may recover the named defendant's profits, not profits of separate, non-party affiliates.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · February 26, 2025 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that under the Lanham Act, a trademark infringement plaintiff can only recover profits earned by the named defendant, not those earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates.
- Who it affects
- Trademark owners seeking profits must sue the entities that earned them or establish a basis to disregard corporate separateness.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The decision reinforces the principle of corporate separateness, preventing courts from treating distinct entities as a single unit for calculating damages unless the corporate veil is pierced.
The decision applies the usual rule that legally separate corporations are treated as separate entities unless the corporate veil is pierced.
Question presented
Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?
What the Court decided
Holding
In awarding the “defendant’s profits” to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, §1117(a), a court can award only profits ascribable to the “defendant” itself. And the term “defendant” bears its usual legal meaning: the party against whom relief or recovery is sought—here, Dewberry Group. The Engineers chose not to add the Group’s affiliates as defendants. Accordingly, the affiliates’ profits are not the (statutorily disgorgable) “defendant’s profits” as ordinarily understood. Nor do background principles of corporate law convert the one into the other. This Court has often read federal statutes to incorporate such principles. 77 F. 4th 265, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Sotomayorwrote separately
From the opinions
“A court can award only profits ascribable to the “defendant” itself.”
What's next
The Fourth Circuit's judgment was vacated, and the case returns for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Lower courts must calculate any profits award using Dewberry Group's profits rather than simply adding affiliate revenue.
Why it matters
For example, a company cannot automatically collect an affiliate's profits just because that affiliate is connected to the defendant.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Opinion added: opinion
Opinion added: Opinion
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.
Status changed from unknown to unknown
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Dewberry Group?
- The Court ruled that the Lanham Act permits recovery only of profits attributable to the named defendant, Dewberry Group.
- Who is affected by the Dewberry Group decision?
- Trademark plaintiffs must identify and sue the entities whose profits they seek. Corporate affiliates are not automatically included in a profits award.
- What happens next in Dewberry Group?
- The case returns to the lower courts. Any recalculated award must exclude profits of legally separate affiliates that were not defendants.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.