Opinion ID: 471852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extraordinary Remedies under Lanham Act Section 35

Text: 35 Jartran attacks the district court's award, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117, of Jartran's profits from false advertising, double damages, and attorney fees. Jartran's position is supported by the text of the section, which applies only to a violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office. U-Haul's trademark is not so registered. 36 Jartran, however, confronts the fact that these remedies have been held by this court to be available in actions under Lanham Act Sec. 43(a). See Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 802, 88 L.Ed.2d 778 (1986). We explained: [W]e can see no reason to distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks.... The type of conduct that these damages should deter is unrelated to the type of intellectual property protected. Id. at 1026. Jartran tries to distinguish this case on two grounds. First, that it is not a false advertising case. Second, that our decision in Transgo expressly limited its holding to the attorneys' fee remedy, refusing to address the other remedies provided by section 35. 37 Neither argument is persuasive. Not only do we see no significant distinction between false advertising cases and other cases under Lanham Act Sec. 43(a), see id., but also the rationale for the Transgo decision, viz. the need for remedial consistency in the recovery of attorneys' fees, is no less pressing when a court considers awarding damages and unlawful profits. We hold that the district court was correct in applying section 35 to this case. 38 Finally, Jartran contends that the district court should not have included the $6 million cost of its advertising campaign as profits within the meaning of Lanham Act Sec. 35 because Jartran did not make a profit during the relevant period. It is irrelevant that Jartran as a whole failed to turn a profit during the period of the advertising. The amount to be awarded is the financial benefit Jartran received because of the advertising. Cf. Otis Clapp & Son, Inc., v. Filmore Vitamin Co., 754 F.2d 738, 744-45 (7th Cir.1985) (affirming award of profits even though defendant's overall operations were unprofitable). The district court assumed that the financial benefit was at least equal to the advertising expenditures. Considering the detailed evidence that the court had of Jartran's swift revenue growth and the connection of that growth to Jartran's advertising, that finding is not clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court's award.