Chris LarusThe 8th Circuit recently “clarified” the showing necessary to recover monetary remedies under the Lanham Act. In Masters v. UHS of Delaware, the court held that evidence of actual confusion is not a prerequisite to the recovery of monetary damages. This recent decision reflects a more fact-specific approach toward the recovery of damages and a move away from bright line damage rules. The decision also recognizes that infringement can impact the overall value of a mark, supporting a monetary award even where the trademark holder has not suffered any identifiable lost sales.

Trademark Infringement under The Lanham Act

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]