15 U.S.C. § 1122

Liability of United States and States, and instrumentalities and officials thereof

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States

The United States, all agencies and instrumentalities thereof, and all individuals, firms, corporations, other persons acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall not be immune from suit in Federal or State court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for any violation under this chapter.

(b) Waiver of sovereign immunity by States

Any State, instrumentality of a State or any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity for any violation under this chapter.

In a suit described in subsection (a) or (b) for a violation described therein, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any person other than the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, corporation, or other person acting for the United States and with authorization and consent of the United States, or a State, instrumentality of a State, or officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Such remedies include injunctive relief under section 1116 of this title, actual damages, profits, costs and attorney’s fees under section 1117 of this title, destruction of infringing articles under section 1118 of this title, the remedies provided for under sections 1114, 1119, 1120, 1124 and 1125 of this title, and for any other remedies provided under this chapter.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title VI, § 40, as added Pub. L. 102–542, § 3(b), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3567; amended Pub. L. 106–43, § 4(b), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 219.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 1122, act July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title VI, § 40, 60 Stat. 440, related to review of cases by the Supreme Court, prior to repeal by act May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 142, 63 Stat. 109. See section 1254 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–43, § 4(b)(2), added subsec. (a). Former subsec. (a) redesignated (b).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–43, § 4(b)(1), (2), redesignated subsec. (a) as (b) and inserted heading. Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–43, § 4(b)(1), (3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c) and in first sentence substituted “subsection (a) or (b) for a violation described therein” for “subsection (a) of this section for a violation described in that subsection” and inserted “the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, corporation, or other person acting for the United States and with authorization and consent of the United States, or” after “other than”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective with respect to violations that occur on or after Oct. 27, 1992, see section 4 of Pub. L. 102–542, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 1114 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999). · cites it 4× “§ 3(b) (codified in 15 U. S. C. § 1122 ). Petitioner College Savings Bank is a New Jersey chartered bank located in Princeton, New Jersey.”

Davis v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 235 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 4× “In his complaint, plaintiff alleges nine causes of action — namely: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) 15 U.S.C. § 1122 ; (4) Implied in Fact; (5) Expressed in Fact; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (7) Just Compensation Clause; *238…”

Denise Chavez, United States of Am., Intervenor v. Arte Publico Press Nicolas Kanellos Univ. of Houston, 157 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1122 ; 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 , 511.”

Kentucky Mist Moonshine, Inc. v. Univ. of Kentucky, 192 F. Supp. 3d 772 (E.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 2× “Additionally, Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1122 , 1125, et seq. See College Sav.”

Milo Shammas v. Margaret Focarino, 784 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 1117 (b) (authorizing recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fee” in counterfeit mark litigation); and • 15 U.S.C. § 1122 (c) (specifying remedies of prevailing party as including “actual damages, profits, costs and attorney’s fees”).”

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 2 15 U.S.C. § 1122 . Remedies for claims against the United States are available “to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any person.”

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org., 82 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2023). “at 670 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1122 (b)). As relevant here, the petitioner argued that a state could be said to have “‘impliedly’ or ‘constructively’ waived its immunity” upon engaging 48 in the relevant predicate conduct — namely, “the activities regulated by the Lanham Act” —…”

Adam Barbour v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., United States of Am., Intervenor, 374 F.3d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “at 2229 (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1122 (a)); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.”

Denise Chavez, United States of Am., Intervenor v. Arte Publico Press Nicolas Kanellos Univ. of Houston, 139 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1122 ; 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 , 511.”

Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 948 F. Supp. 400 (D.N.J. 1996). “Both enactments provide that no state or state instrumentality is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for violations of these statutes. See Pub.L.”

Denise Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 59 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 1995). “The Lanham Act provides in pertinent part: Any State, any instrumentality of a State or any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution or under any doctrine…”

Arecibo Cmty. Health Care, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 244 F.3d 241 (1st Cir. 2001). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1122 (b). In passing upon the validity of this provision the Court stated: There is a fundamental difference between a State’s expressing unequivocally that it waives its immunity, and Congress’s expressing unequivocally its intention that if the State takes…”

Show all 30 citing cases →

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.