Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/714/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:41:49+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 386 › Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.
Respondents were held to have deliberately infringed petitioners' Lanham Act trademark rights. The District Court then awarded petitioners reasonable attorney's fees, relying upon case authority to the effect that such an award is permissible when the infringement is "deliberate." The Court of Appeals, having granted an interlocutory appeal, reversed. The Lanham Act provides, in § 35, for compensatory recovery measured by the defendant's profits accruing from his infringement, the costs of the action, and damages which may be trebled in appropriate circumstances.
Held: Attorney's fees are not recoverable under the Lanham Act. The meticulous statutory provisions set forth in § 35 are exclusive of any other monetary remedies for violation of rights protected by the Act. Pp. 386 U. S. 717-721.
District Court had relied. 385 U.S. 809 (1966). For the reasons elaborated below, we affirm.
3 Dall. 306 (1796), and adhered to it in later decisions. See, e.g., Haguenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1880); Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 187 (1879); Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211 (1872); Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852). In support of the American rule, it has been argued that, since litigation is, at best, uncertain, one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents' counsel. Cf. Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co., 379 U. S. 227, at 379 U. S. 235 (1964); id. at 379 U. S. 236-239 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Goldberg). Also, the time, expense, and difficulties of proof inherent in litigating the question of what constitutes reasonable attorney's fees would pose substantial burdens for judicial administration. Oelrichs v. Spain, supra, at 82 U. S. 231.
Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U. S. 161 (1939) -- involved yet another exception. That exception had previously been applied in cases where a plaintiff traced or created a common fund for the benefit of others as well as himself. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 (1882). In that situation to have allowed the others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff's efforts without requiring contribution or charging the common fund for attorney's fees would have been to enrich the others unjustly at the expense of the plaintiff. Sprague itself involved a variation of the common fund situation where, although the plaintiff had not in a technical sense sued for the benefit of others or to create a common fund, the stare decisis effect of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff established as a matter of law the right of a discernible class of persons to collect upon similar claims. The Court held that the general equity power "to do equity in a particular situation" supported an award of attorney's fees under such circumstances for the same reasons that underlay the common fund decisions.
remedy in connection with various other statutory causes of action. [Footnote 17] But several attempts to introduce such a provision into the Lanham Act have failed of enactment. [Footnote 18] We therefore must conclude that Congress intended § 35 of the Lanham Act to mark the boundaries of the power to award monetary relief in cases arising under the Act. A judicially created compensatory remedy in addition to the express statutory remedies is inappropriate in this context.
"When a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent Office shall have been established in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of sections 1111 and 1114 of this title, and subject to the principles of equity, to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. . . . In assessing damages the court may enter judgment, according to the circumstances of the case, for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times such amount. If the court shall find that the amount of the recovery based on profits is either inadequate or excessive the court may in its discretion enter judgment for such sum as the court shall find to be just, according to the circumstances of the case. Such sum in either of the above circumstances shall constitute compensation and not a penalty."
The Fleischmann Distilling Corporation owns the American distribution rights to Scotch whiskey sold under the trademark "Black & White." Its co-petitioner is James Buchanan & Co., Ltd., owner and registrant of the trademark.
Maier Brewing Company, the principal respondent, is an independent brewery which marketed a beer under the label "Black & White" through its co respondent, Ralphs Grocery Company.
E.g., Baker v. Simmons Co., 325 F.2d 580 (C.A. 1st Cir.1963); Wolfe v. National Lead Co., 272 F.2d 867 (C.A. 9th Cir.1959); Keller Products v. Rubber Linings Corp., 213 F.2d 382 (C.A. 7th Cir.1954); Century Distilling Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., 205 F.2d 140 (C.A.3d Cir.1953); Admiral Corp. v. Penco, Inc., 203 F.2d 517 (C.A.2d Cir.1953). As the Court of Appeals in this case pointed out, the decisions upholding awards of attorney's fees under the Lanham Act, in most instances, merely state the conclusion that attorney's fees are recoverable and cite prior case authority, often commencing with a pre-Lanham Act decision -- Aladdin Mfg. Co. v. Mantle Lamp Co., 116 F.2d 708 (C.A. 7th Cir.1941).
E.g., Youthform Co. v. R. H. Macy & Co., 153 F.Supp. 87 (D.C.N.D. Ga.1957); Williamson-Dickie Mfg. Co. v. Davis Mfg. Co., 149 F.Supp. 852 (D.C.E.D.Pa.1957); Francis H. Leggett & Co. v. Premier Packing Co., 140 F.Supp. 328 (D.C. Mass.1956); Singer Mfg. Co. v. Singer Upholstering & Sewing Co., 130 F.Supp. 205 (D.C.W.D.Pa.1955).
"When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order. . . ."
Statute of Gloucester, 1278, 6 Edw. 1, c. 1. This statute, which expressly mentioned only "the costs of his writ purchased," was from the outset liberally construed to encompass all legal costs of suit, including counsel fees. Goodhart, Costs, 38 Yale L.J. 849, 852 (1929).
Statute of Westminster, 1607, 4 Jac. 1, c. 3.
See generally McCormick, Damages § 60 (1935); Goodhart, Costs, 38 Yale L.J. 849-872 (1929) (passim).
Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of Counsel Fees and the Great Society, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 792 (1966); McCormick, Counsel Fees and Other Expenses of Litigation as an Element of Damages, 15 Minn.L.Rev. 619 (1931); Stoebuck, Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development, 38 Colo.L.Rev. 202 (1966); Note, 65 Mich.L.Rev. 593 (1967).
28 U.S.C. § 1923(a), which is derived from the Fee Bill of 1853, 10 Stat. 161, might be termed a "general exception." It provides for recovery of nominal sums known as "Attorney's and proctor's docket fees." In ordinary litigation and "on trial or final hearing," the sum recoverable under this provision is $20, to be taxed as part of the costs defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Section 34 of the Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 439, 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 439, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (quoted, supra, n 1).
"A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: "
"(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;"
"(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;"
"(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;"
"(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;"
"(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title."
35 U.S.C. § 285. This provision was enacted in 1946, as was the Lanham Act. 60 Stat. 778. It was revised in 1952, so as to limit such recovery to "exceptional cases." 66 Stat. 813.
See, e.g., Clayton Act, § 4, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 15; Communications Act of 1934, § 206, 48 Stat. 1072, 47 U.S.C. § 206; Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 116; Fair Labor Standards Act, § 16(b), 52 Stat. 1069, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Interstate Commerce Act, § 16, 34 Stat. 590, 49 U.S.C. § 16(2); Packers and Stockyards Act, § 309(f), 42 Stat. 166, 7 U.S.C. § 210(f); Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, § 7(b), 46 Stat. 535, 7 U.S.C. § 499g(b); Railway Labor Act, § 3 First (p), 48 Stat. 1192, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (p); Securities Act of 1933, § 11(e), 48 Stat. 907, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(e); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, §§ 9(e), 18(a), 48 Stat. 890, 897, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(e), 78r(a); Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 38 U.S.C. § 1822(b); Trust Indenture Act, § 323(a), 53 Stat. 1176, 15 U.S.C. § 77www(a). See also Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 37(a) and 56(g).
S. 2540, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., § 25 (1953), containing a provision for recovery of attorney's fees, passed the Senate, but failed of enactment in the House of Representatives. The Report accompanying the bill stated that the provision was intended to parallel the then recent addition to the patent statute. (See n 16, supra.) A similar provision was embodied in H.R. 7734, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., § 25 (1955), which also died after passing the originating House.
"If the court shall find that the amount of the recovery based on profits is either inadequate or excessive the court may in its discretion enter judgment for such sum as the court shall find to be just, according to the circumstances of the case. [Footnote 2/5]"
The argument that Congress has declined to amend the Act to provide explicitly for counsel fees is hardly determinative. For Congress can be assumed to have known that the federal courts were consistently exercising the power to award counsel fees after the Act's passage. The failure to amend the statute to do away with this judicial power speaks as loudly for its recognition as the failure to pass the bills referred to by the Court speaks for the contrary conclusion.
Footnotes 4 and 5 of the Court's opinion, ante pp. 386 U. S. 715-716, set out the copious authority supporting the power in trademark litigation to award counsel fees in appropriate circumstances.
This case does not involve the "adoption of the English practice in this country," but simply whether the established American practice of awarding counsel fees in appropriate trademark cases is to be repudiated.
See ante pp. 386 U. S. 715-716, n. 4.
Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 439, 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
"Mere silence and inaction by Congress cannot be held to have repealed what has been found to be a well established judicial power. Even though the Lanham Act may have been intended to be an integrated and comprehensive set of rules for trademark regulation and litigation to the exclusion of all conflicting rules, the retention of discretionary judicial power over the fixing of costs does not seem such a threat of inconsistency that it should, by implication, be held preempted or repealed by the Act. Some more positive action on the part of the legislature is necessary to indicate the Congressional intent to regulate what has long been an orthodox judicial function."

References: v. 
 § 35
 § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 60
 § 1923
 § 1920
 § 1116
 § 1117
 § 285
 § 4
 § 15
 § 206
 § 206
 § 116
 § 16
 § 216
 § 16
 § 16
 § 309
 § 210
 § 7
 § 499
 § 3
 § 153
 § 11
 § 77
 § 1822
 § 323
 § 77
 § 25
 § 25
 § 1117