15 U.S.C. § 1111
Notice of registration; display with mark; recovery of profits and damages in infringement suit
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1072 of this title, a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words “Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office” or “Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.” or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ®; and in any suit for infringement under this chapter by such a registrant failing to give such notice of registration, no profits and no damages shall be recovered under the provisions of this chapter unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Derrick Mfg. Corp. v. Sw. Wire Cloth, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
Derrick Mfg. Corp. v. Sw. Wire Cloth, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Tex. 1996). “# 44] is DENIED; • Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment That All Damages for Statutory Trademark Infringement of Derrick’s Federally Registered Trademark Incurred Prior to January 14, *800 1994 Are Barred by 15 U.S.C. § 1111 [Doc. #40] is DENIED. I.”
GTFM, Inc. v. Solid Clothing, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “GTFM’s Failure to Provide Notice of Registration Pursuant to Section 29 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 , Solid argues that GTFM may not collect any profits or damages because it failed to display on its apparel statutory notice of the federal registration of the “05” mark.”
Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int'l, LLC, 165 F. Supp. 3d 937 (S.D. Cal. 2016). “commerce; (3) the FACC fails to allege the notice required for treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1111 ; (4) the alleged false statements are not false or misleading; and (5) the FACC fails to allege plausible facts showing Fiber Research suffered economic injury.”
4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York & Co., Inc., 933 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2019). “District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.”
Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014). “It offered a number of different theories of recovery, including intentional violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq., common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, trade dress infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012). “The court shall assess such profits and damages or cause the same to be assessed under its direction.”
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc., 683 F. Supp. 899 (E.D.N.Y 1988). “” And fourth, they urge that plaintiffs failure to display on its product the statutory notice required by § 29 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 , bars each cause of action absent proof that defendants received actual notice of plaintiffs registration of the mark, a triable…”
Gucci Am., Inc. v. Daffy's, Inc. John Does 1-10, 354 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2003). “§ 1125 (c)], shall have been established in any civil action arising under this Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 29 and 32 [ 15 U.S.C. §§ 1111 ,1114], and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any…”
Quick Tech., Inc. v. The Sage Grp. Plc &, Sage Us Holdings, Inc. Quick Tech., Inc. v. Sage Software, Inc., 313 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2003). “§ 1125 (c)], shall have been established in any civil action arising under this Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of section 29 and 32 [ 15 U.S.C. §§ 1111 , 1114], and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant’s profits, (2) any…”
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2012). “On defendants’ challenge to the award of damages — pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1111 plaintiff did not give notice of the registration or the infringer had no actual knowledge of it — we held that we need not consider whether plaintiff was entitled to an award of damages under the…”
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inn v. Strand Dev. Corp., 645 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1981). “(the Chain), a national and international operation in the same business with its name duly registered under 15 U.S.C. § 1111 . 1 The injunction prohibited the Local from indicating that its name HOLIDAY INN was registered by the U.”
Craigslist, Inc. v. NATUREMARKET, INC., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Federal Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1111 and § 1125(a) In its fifth claim, Plaintiff asserts a claim for trademark infringement under § 1114 and § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1111(1) — 1 case
Laurel Capital Grp., Inc. v. BT Fin. Corp., 45 F. Supp. 2d 469 (W.D. Pa. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.