LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 83 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C E M P I P demand to respect corporate formalities remains.” Id. at 5. As a result, because Dewberry Engineer chose not to name the affiliates as defendants or attempt to pierce the corporate veil, the lower courts could not group the affiliates together with the defendant entity. The Court expressly did not rule on the issue of whether this award was proper under the Lanham Act’s “justsum” provision. Id. at 8. Justice Sotomayor joined fully in the Court’s opinion but also wrote a concurring opinion cautioning that even though affiliate profits cannot be counted as defendant’s profits, courts are not required to ignore economic realities or “accept clever accounting.” Dewberry, No. 23-900, slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Although the Court affirmed the tradition of respecting corporate structure, it left a “number of questions unaddressed,” including whether the equitable just-sum provision could justify an award based on affiliates’ profits and whether courts can “look behind” tax or accounting records to consider “the economic realities of a transaction.” Id. at 8. While these unanswered questions set the stage for a potentially groundbreaking remand, overall, Dewberry provides a useful reminder that Lanham Act plaintiffs must think critically about the financial status of their named defendants. IP/Media 82 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==