Page 9 - The Katten Kattwalk - Summer 2025 - Issue 29

A central factor in Curry was the defendant’s bad Ultimately, Curry reflects the evolving landscape
faith conduct and indifference to confusion after of trademark remedies and the interplay between
receiving notice of potential infringement. The court federal and state law. The case reinforces that
examined internal records indicating awareness of while punitive damages remain unavailable under
the plaintiff’s claims. This aspect of the decision the Lanham Act, they may still be awarded in
suggests that courts may assess post-notice conduct appropriate cases through state-law claims, subject
when determining whether a defendant acted in a to constitutional limitations. Courts will continue to
manner that justifies punitive liability under state refine the standards for determining when punitive
law. However, the case does not establish a blanket damages are warranted, and both plaintiffs and
rule that continuing use after receiving a cease defendants must remain attentive to how courts
and desist letter automatically constitutes willful interpret willfulness, bad faith and the implications of
infringement or merits punitive damages. Each case post-notice conduct in future cases.
remains fact-specific, and courts will continue to
evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including *Marta Sarvas, Floyd’s former law student who received her
whether a defendant had a legitimate basis for LLM degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-
Kent College of Law, in May 2025, contributed to this article.
contesting the claim or whether a plaintiff provided She is also certified by Harvard University and is a licensed
sufficient evidence of intentional disregard. attorney in Ukraine.

The broader implications of Curry extend to how
businesses and legal practitioners approach
trademark disputes. For plaintiffs, the ruling
illustrates that punitive damages may be an option
when a state-law claim is available, particularly
where clear evidence supports allegations of willful
or reckless infringement. This requires careful
documentation of the defendant’s knowledge and
intent, as well as a strong legal basis for pursuing
punitive relief. For defendants, the decision
highlights the importance of assessing trademark
claims thoroughly and responding to infringement
allegations with diligence. While a cease and
desist letter does not mandate immediate
cessation of use, businesses should
carefully evaluate the merits of the
claim, seek legal guidance and
document their decision-making
process to mitigate potential
exposure to punitive damages.

9