Legal Opinion · Dissent
Milo Shammas v. Margaret Focarino
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided April 23, 2015No. 14-1191Published
1DissentKing, Circuit Judge
The Lanham Act provision at issue here, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(3), makes no reference to attorney’s fees awards and does not reflect a Congressional intention to authorize such awards. Nevertheless, the panel majority affirms the district court’s attorney’s fees award to the PTO under § 1071(b)(3), in contravention of the. American Rule. As Justice White explained for the Supreme Court in 1975, the American Rule “is deeply rooted in our history and in congressional policy; and it is not for us to invade the legislature’s province by redistributing litigation costs.” See Alyeska Pipeline Serv.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Clay v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.