US Supreme Court Accepts 'Dewberry' Trademark Dispute
The matter will be heard in the next term, beginning in October
By: : Daniel
Update: 2024-06-25 04:15 GMT
US Supreme Court Accepts 'Dewberry' Trademark Dispute
The matter will be heard in the next term, beginning in October
The US Supreme Court has decided to deal with a $43 million dispute between real estate developers Dewberry Engineers, based in Virginia and Dewberry Group in Georgia, over the rights to the mark ‘Dewberry’.
It explored if the courts could award a company's profits as a remedy for trademark infringement.
The judges accepted an appeal by Atlanta-based Dewberry Group of rulings by lower courts in favor of Fairfax-based Dewberry Engineers.
In 2021, the Virginia-based U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady ruled in favor of Dewberry Engineers. It was awarded $43 million of Dewberry Group's profits stemming from intentional trademark infringement.
In 2023, the Richmond, Virginia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld O'Grady's ruling.
Dewberry Engineers, an engineering firm, began operations in the 1950s. It expanded by adding real-estate development services in the southeastern United States.
In 1989, real estate developer John Dewberry founded the Dewberry Group, which provides similar services through several affiliates.
Dewberry Engineers first sued the Dewberry Group (formerly Dewberry Capital), for trademark infringement in 2006. A year later, the companies settled the dispute.
However, in 2017, Dewberry Capital changed its name to Dewberry Group and offered services under sub-brands including Dewberry Living, Dewberry Office and Studio Dewberry.
It was then that Dewberry Engineers sent a cease-and-desist notice to the Dewberry Group, as the latter applied for federal trademarks covering the brand names.
In 2020, Dewberry Engineers again sued Dewberry Group for allegedly infringing its trademarks and breaking their settlement agreement.
Recently, Dewberry Group informed the Supreme Court that the lower courts had wrongly held it liable for the actions of the affiliates, not named in the case.
It added, “Allowing the plaintiffs to bulldoze corporate distinctions in this manner could have harmful consequences.”