在德拉瓦州法院判定本案[1]被告USA New Bunren International Co. Limited LLC違反蘭哈姆法(Lanham Act,15 U. S. C. §1051及以下規定)第1114(1)條、第1125(a)條及第1125(c)條規定後,緊接而來的便是如何認定原告New Balance Athletics, Inc.應獲得之損害賠償金額。在2019年裁判中,法院僅判定原告可獲得第1117(c)(1)條之法定損害賠償,但金額未決,並且初步拒絕判給原告合理律師費;至2020年裁判,法院方就「合理賠償金額」以及「不得主張第1117(a)或(b)條之律師費」兩項爭議做出結論。
曾有判決指出,如產品的功能用途不同,即可視為不同商品種類加以計算。另外,也可按照「被告申請商標註冊時所列出之商品清單」決定種類數量,因為這表示被告向美國專利商標局(USPTO)申請時即表明各該商品有所不同而應予分別處理。在本案,被告申請時共列出21項商品,包括帽子、襪子、手套、皮帶、鞋子、連身衣、圍巾、舞衣上著、舞衣下著、泳衣、T恤、polo衫、短袖襯衫、長袖襯衫、短褲、長褲、毛衣、套頭衫、緊身衣、夾克與連帽運動衫;而根據被告提交的使用聲明書(Statement of Use),其在商業上使用「N」標誌之範圍係涵蓋前述所有種類。
依據第1117(a)條請求實際損害賠償時,法院得在特殊案件(exceptional case)判給合理律師費。所謂「特殊」,係指兩造當事人訴訟立場之依據(merits of the position)顯有差異,或敗訴方以不合理之方式進行訴訟;換言之,如當事人訴訟地位上之實質強度(substantive strength)(需考量所適用法律及案件事實)或訴訟進行方式之不合理程度,相較於其他案件有顯著不同時[3]。
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. USA New Bunren Int'l Co., 424 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D. Del. 2019); New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. USA New Bunren Int'l Co., C.A. No. 17-1700 (MN) (D. Del. Sep. 18, 2020).
15 U. S. C. §1117(c), “In a case involving the use of a counterfeit mark (as defined in section 1116(d) of this title) in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a), an award of statutory damages for any such use in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services in the amount of—
(1)not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just; or
(2)if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just.”
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014).