Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.

1967-05-08

Headline: Trademark owners are denied a judicial award of lawyers’ fees: Court affirms that federal courts may not award separate attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act, limiting fee recovery for trademark winners.

Holding: The Court held that under the Lanham Act federal courts may not award attorney's fees as a separate compensatory remedy even when deliberate trademark infringement has been proved.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for trademark owners to recover lawyers' fees after winning infringement claims.
Winners can still seek defendant profits, damages, limited court costs, and injunctions.
Only Congress can authorize broader fee awards unless another statute applies.

Topics: trademark law, attorney's fees, Lanham Act, intellectual property

Summary

Background

A whiskey distributor and the trademark owner sued a brewery and a grocery that sold beer under the same "Black & White" label. Lower courts found the brewery deliberately infringed the trademark, and a district judge awarded $60,000 in attorney’s fees. A federal appeals court sitting en banc reversed that fee award, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether fees may be awarded under the Lanham Act.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question simply: can federal courts add attorney’s fees as a separate money recovery when deliberate trademark infringement is proved? The opinion explains the long-standing American rule that attorney’s fees are not normally recoverable unless a statute or contract allows them. The Court reviewed limited exceptions (like common-fund cases, admiralty, and contempt) and concluded that the Lanham Act already specifies the money remedies plaintiffs may get—profits, damages, and "costs"—and that the statutory word "costs" does not include ordinary attorney’s fees. Because Congress could have, but did not, provide fees in the Lanham Act, the Court held it would be inappropriate for courts to create that extra remedy.

Real world impact

Trademark owners who win infringement cases can still seek injunctions, the defendant’s profits, damages, and limited taxed court costs, but not a separate award of lawyers’ fees under the Lanham Act. That result will leave fee relief to Congress or to other statutes that explicitly allow fees.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart dissented, arguing that federal courts had long exercised the power to award fees in trademark cases and that Congress’ silence did not clearly forbid such awards. He would have left the practice intact absent a clear congressional statement.