L. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co.

1928-05-14
Share:

Headline: Court blocks an infringing candy maker from deducting federal income and excess profits taxes from damages, making it harder for copycat companies to reduce payments to the packaging owner.

Holding: The Court ruled that an infringing company may not deduct federal income and excess profits taxes from the profits it must disgorge to the packaging owner, reversing the lower court’s allowance of that deduction.

Real World Impact:
  • Prevents infringers from lowering damages by deducting federal taxes.
  • Helps rights holders recover fuller profits from deliberate copycat packaging.
  • Discourages companies from relying on tax deductions to lessen infringement liability.
Topics: packaging copying, infringement damages, tax deductions in lawsuits, corporate wrongdoing

Summary

Background

The dispute is between the Wrigley Company, which sold Doublemint gum in a package dress, and the Larson Company, which owned the Wintermint gum package design. After long litigation, Wrigley was ordered to account for net profits from sales that used the infringing package. During the accounting process, a question arose about whether Wrigley could deduct federal income and excess profits taxes from the profits it must turn over. The case reached this Court to decide that tax-deduction question.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether treating the infringer as an agent or trustee requires allowing the tax deduction. It said calling the wrongdoer an agent is only an analogy and that the actual circumstances matter, including what the infringer knew and did. The Court agreed that necessary production costs may be allowed, but refused to let the infringer deduct taxes it paid for the chance to do what it knew it had no right to do. Because the record showed conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, the Court concluded that allowing the further tax deduction would be unjust and reversed the lower court’s allowance of that deduction.

Real world impact

The ruling stops an infringing company from lowering the profits it must give up by claiming federal tax deductions in this kind of deliberate-copying case. That makes rights holders more likely to recover the full profits from copying. The decree as to the tax allowance was reversed, resolving the accounting issue in favor of the packaging owner.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases