Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 10:10, 1 March 2025 by Myj Saintyl (contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc.
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: December 11, 2024
Decided: February 26, 2025
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 11, 2024.

In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that when awarding the defendant’s profits to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, a court can only award profits that come from the defendant itself. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned disgorgement under the Lanham Act in a federal trademark dispute between two companies using the same surname. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether an award of the 'defendant's profits' under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Dewberry Group, Inc.
      • Legal counsel: Helgi C. Walker (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
    • Respondent: Dewberry Engineers Inc.
      • Legal counsel: Elbert Lin (Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by SCOTUSblog:[4]

    “

    [I]n Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, the justices will consider whether, when a plaintiff obtains an award of the “defendant’s profits” in a lawsuit brought under the Lanham Act for a trademark violation, that award can include an order for the defendant to turn over the profits by a separate corporate affiliate that is not part of the case.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether an award of the 'defendant's profits' under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that when awarding the defendant’s profits to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, a court can only award profits that come from the defendant itself. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “

    All we hold today is that the courts below were wrong to treat Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single entity in calculating the “defendant’s profits.” Dewberry Group is the sole defendant here, and under that language only its own profits are recoverable.

    We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    I join in full the Court’s opinion, which holds that courts must respect principles of corporate separateness in calculating a ‘defendant’s profits’ for purposes of the Lanham Act. See ante, at 5, 8. Those principles and the Lanham Act’s plain text forbade the lower courts from attributing to Dewberry Group all the profits of its affiliates, absent veil piercing. See ante, at 4–5. Dewberry Group itself, however, reports no profits on its tax returns. It has operated at a loss for decades, while its affiliates have made tens of millions in profits with the aid of the Group’s trademark-infringing services. Before the lower courts, Dewberry Group indicated that its own tax returns should control the calculation of its profits, meaning that the Group would owe zero dollars in disgorgement.*

    I write separately to underscore that principles of corporate separateness do not blind courts to economic realities. Nor do they force courts to accept clever accounting, including efforts to obscure a defendant’s true financial gain through arrangements with affiliates. To the contrary, there are myriad ways in which courts might consider accounting arrangements between a defendant and its affiliates in calculating a ‘defendant’s profits.’ Two examples illustrate the point. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, "Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc.," February 25, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-900 DEWBERRY GROUP, INC. V. DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC.," June 24, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-900," accessed August 19, 2024
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court adds seven cases to next term’s docket," June 24, 2024
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Dewberry Eng'rs v. Dewberry Grp., decided August 9, 2023
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued December 11, 2024
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued December 11, 2024
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dewberry_Group,_Inc._v._Dewberry_Engineers,_Inc.&oldid=10263104"