Fleischmann Distilling Corp. et al. v. Maier Brewing Co. et al.
386 U.S. 714 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act, federal courts may not award attorney's fees to the prevailing party because the Act's detailed and specific list of remedies does not expressly provide for them.
Facts:
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. owned a valid trademark.
- Maier Brewing Co. engaged in infringing activities using Fleischmann's trademark.
- The infringement by Maier Brewing Co. was determined to be deliberate and willful.
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. incurred significant legal expenses to prosecute the infringement action.
Procedural Posture:
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. sued Maier Brewing Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for trademark infringement.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that Maier's infringement was deliberate and remanded the case.
- On remand, the District Court awarded Fleischmann $60,000 in attorney's fees.
- Maier Brewing Co. (appellant) appealed the award of attorney's fees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court, holding that the Lanham Act did not authorize such awards.
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Lanham Act, which enumerates specific remedies for trademark infringement such as profits, damages, and costs, authorize a federal court to award attorney's fees as a separate element of recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
No, the Lanham Act does not authorize an award of attorney's fees. The Court adheres to the 'American Rule,' under which parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. While there are narrow equitable exceptions, such as the 'common fund' doctrine from Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, they are inapplicable here. The Lanham Act meticulously details the available remedies—injunctive relief, defendant's profits, costs, and treble damages—and attorney's fees are absent from this list. Where Congress has created a cause of action and expressly provided a comprehensive set of remedies, courts should not imply additional ones. The fact that Congress has explicitly authorized attorney's fees in other statutes, like patent law, but has failed to do so for the Lanham Act, reinforces the conclusion that the omission was intentional.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes, the Lanham Act should be interpreted to authorize an award of attorney's fees in appropriate cases. The dissent argues that prior to this decision, federal courts had consistently upheld their power to award fees in trademark cases. The Act's provision that relief is 'subject to the principles of equity' suggests Congress intended to preserve this pre-existing judicial authority, particularly in cases of willful infringement. Furthermore, the statute's language allowing a court to award a sum it finds 'just, according to the circumstances of the case' indicates that Congress did not intend to rigidly limit the available remedies. Congress's failure to legislatively prohibit a practice that courts were consistently following is as telling as its failure to explicitly authorize it.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirmed the 'American Rule' regarding attorney's fees in the context of detailed federal statutory schemes. It established that unless Congress explicitly includes attorney's fees in a statute's list of remedies, courts should presume they are not available. This created a notable inconsistency between patent law, where fees were statutorily permitted, and trademark law. The holding's impact was significant enough that Congress later amended the Lanham Act in 1975, adding a provision that explicitly allows for the award of attorney's fees in 'exceptional cases' to overturn the result of this decision.
Unlock the full brief for Fleischmann Distilling Corp. et al. v. Maier Brewing Co. et al.