Opinion ID: 429406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorneys' Fees and Accounting

Text: 15 Section 35 of the Lanham Act states in pertinent part: 16 When a violation ... shall have been established in any civil action arising under this chapter, the plaintiff shall be entitled ... to recover (1) defendant's profits, (2) any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action. The court shall assess such profit and damages or cause the same to be assessed under its direction. 17 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117 (1982). 18 Springs Mills contends that the district court erred in denying its request for attorneys' fees and for an accounting. First, Springs Mills argues that profits can be awarded under section 35 of the Lanham Act whenever an infringer's conduct is willful, even though the plaintiff does not show lost sales and the parties are not competitors. 19 We agree with Springs Mills' basic contention that an accounting may be appropriate whenever an infringer's conduct is willful. Under the circumstances herein, where we previously found that the defendants adopted their mark and trade dress for no other purpose than to obtain a free ride on the good reputation of their successful competitor, Spring[s] Mills, Inc., 689 F.2d at 1134, Springs Mills is entitled to have its accounting claim considered by the district court. See, e.g., Maltina Corp. v. Cawy Bottling Co., 613 F.2d 582, 584-85 (5th Cir.1980); W.E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 664 (2d Cir.1970); Masterpiece of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Consolidated Novelty Co., 186 U.S.P.Q. 134, 137 (S.D.N.Y.1975). 20 We also agree with Springs Mills' contention that it is entitled to have its request for attorneys' fees considered. Section 35 of the Lanham Act provides that [t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117 (1982). The circumstances herein, constituting willful infringement, qualify this case as one in which the district court should have considered the available remedy of attorneys' fees or, at least, should have stated its reasons for failing to do so. See, e.g., O'Brien International, Inc. v. Mitch, 209 U.S.P.Q. 212, 221 (N.D.Cal.1980); RCA Records v. Kory Records, Inc., 197 U.S.P.Q. 908, 909 (E.D.N.Y.1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). 21 In the context of this case, the district court's failure to consider Springs Mills' requests for an accounting and for attorneys' fees was an abuse of discretion.