Page 108 - Intellectual Property Disputes
P. 108

the average profit margin because infringement may allow the infringer to recognize net profit at a much
               larger profit margin percentage of its gross revenue than in the absence of infringement.  fn 10

               In On Davis, a copyright case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the definition of revenues to
               be used in the damage claim, stating "we think the term ‘gross revenue’ under the statute means gross
               revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not unrelated revenues."  fn 11   In arriving at its decision,
               the Ninth Circuit relied in part on the Seventh Circuit’s 1983 decision in Taylor v. Meirick, which held
               that the copyright owner was entitled to profits of the infringer related to infringed product sales but not
               on everything the infringer sold. Therefore, to establish a prima facie case, the copyright owner should
               show the infringer’s gross sales of infringing products.  fn 12   Notably, the Seventh Circuit in the Taylor
               case explained its logic in interpreting the statute as follows: "If General Motors were to steal your
               copyright and put it in a sales brochure, you could not just put a copy of General Motors’ corporate
               income tax return in the record and rest your case for an award of infringer’s profits."  fn 13

               Consistent with the previous discussion on incremental costs, some courts accept as deductible expenses
               only those costs directly attributable to the production, distribution, performance, or display of the
               infringing work. For the infringer to deduct such expenses, it should prove them with a reasonable
               degree of "specificity."  fn 14   In some Federal Circuit opinions, the acceptable profit measure is not
               incremental profit; rather, it is based on a full recognition of the costs related to the infringement,
               including overhead and fixed costs. Some courts, however, have refused to recognize certain overhead
               costs. The client attorney should provide guidance to the expert in this area.


               Under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, a trademark owner is entitled to receive only infringers
               "profits." Determining which costs are deductible from gross revenues to arrive at an infringer’s profits,
               however, is not an easy task. There are a number of competing standards for measuring appropriate cost
               deductions. Under the differential cost rule, sometimes referred to as the incremental approach, only
               specific costs that would not otherwise have been incurred but for the production of the infringing goods
               are allowed as deductions. Fixed costs, such as rent for manufacturing facilities, would not be deducted.
               Only variable costs, such as the raw materials and labor that actually go into manufacturing the
               infringing product, are allowed as deductions. This is the most favorable rule for trademark owners.

               The direct assistance rule is a variant of the differential cost rule, which is more generous to infringers.
               Under the direct assistance rule, costs that directly assisted in the production of the infringing goods are
               allowed as deductions. The benefit to infringers under this rule is that some elements of overhead and
               general administration are permitted deductions. This is the approach taken under the Restatement
               (Third) of Unfair Competition.

               The fully allocated cost rule, sometimes referred to as the full absorption approach, is even more
               generous to infringers. Under this rule, all expense items properly allocated under generally accepted



        fn 10   Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 1998).

        fn 11   On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 160 (9th Cir. 2001).

        fn 12   Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112, 1122 (7th Cir. 1983).

        fn 13   Id.

        fn 14   Allen-Myland v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 770 F. Supp. 1014, 1024 (3d Cir. 1991).


        104                      © 2020, Association of International Certified Professional Accountants
   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113