41:I[185,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"SendEmailButton"] 43:I[63625,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"AddToLibraryButton"] 44:I[29721,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"ShareButton"] 46:I[45269,["/_next/static/chunks/08z4tkzvltetr.js","/_next/static/chunks/121~yigv24_j6.js","/_next/static/chunks/0jo3du-icy6v2.js","/_next/static/chunks/15cy49d~_zsjj.js","/_next/static/chunks/0..ktetnpeix7.js","/_next/static/chunks/0_htf5~kl..m1.js","/_next/static/chunks/0i6hzvr84kc1r.js"],"SignupCTA"] 3a:["$","h1",null,{"className":"max-w-[22ch] font-display text-[clamp(32px,4.5vw,48px)] font-medium leading-[1.05] tracking-[-0.02em] text-[color:var(--fg-1)] text-balance","children":"Dewberry Group Inc v. Dewberry Engineers Inc (Trademark)"}] 3b:["$","div",null,{"className":"flex flex-wrap items-center gap-x-4 gap-y-1 font-mono text-[12px] uppercase tracking-[0.1em] text-[color:var(--fg-3)]","children":[["$","time",null,{"dateTime":"2025-03-07T02:00:00.000Z","children":"March 7, 2025"}],["$","span",null,{"aria-hidden":true,"children":"·"}],["$","span",null,{"children":"00:06:26"}],false]}] 42:T489,

In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the scope of monetary remedies under the Lanham Act. The case arose from a trademark dispute between two entities using the "Dewberry" name. The district court awarded the plaintiff not only the defendant's profits but also those of affiliated companies. The Fourth Circuit upheld this award, reasoning that a broad interpretation of "defendant’s profits" was permissible under the statute.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case under the Lanham Act may recover only the profits of the infringing defendant itself—not those of its affiliates or related entities. The Court emphasized principles of corporate separateness and statutory interpretation, rejecting the expansive reading of "defendant’s profits" adopted by the lower court.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Read by RJ Dieken.