The W. E. Bassett Company v. Revlon, Inc., the W. E. Bassett Company v. Revlon, Inc., (Two Cases)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that \[i]t is essential to deter companies from willfully infringing a competitor's mark\ and that disgorgement of profits is \the only way the courts can fashion a strong enough deterrent\
• noting, in affirming finding of willful infringement, that infringer first tried to buy out its victim, then infringed victim’s mark
• awarding attorney's fees for expenses incurred in prosecuting contempt even though the underlying trademark statute did not permit an award of fees
• awarding disgorgement for trademark infringement even where there was no evidence that plaintiff suffered lost sales, damage to good will, or other monetary damages
• ordering a full accounting of all profits where Revlon deliberately made use of the mark of a smaller competitor because such a remedy was “the only way the courts can fashion a strong enough deterrent”
• ordering a full accounting of all profits where Revlon deliberately made use of the mark of a smaller competitor because such a remedy was \the only way the courts can fashion a strong enough deterrent\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).