Juicy Couture, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 2006 WL 1359955 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2006).See, e.g., Go Med. Indus. PTY, Ltd v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Sands, Taylor, Wood v. Quaker Oats Co., 34 F.3d 1340, 1343 (7th Cir. 1992); Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812 (D. Or. Sept. 12, 2008); R R Partners, Inc. v. Tovar, 2007 WL 1202802 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2007); Icon Solutions, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 1998 WL 314672 (E.D. Pa. 1998); American Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Alabama Farmers Fed'n, 935 F. Supp. 1533 (M.D. Ala. 1996).See Buzz Off Insect Shield, LLC v. S.C. Johnson Son, 606 F. Supp. 2d 571 (M.D.N.C. 2009); Clear Blue, Inc. v. Clear! Blue, Inc., 2008 WL 5232897 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2008); U.S. Olympic Comm. V. Union Sport Apparel, 220 U.S.P.Q. 526 (E.D. Va. 1983).
As a result of this change, several courts have concluded that willfulness is "an important — but not indispensable — factor in evaluating whether equity supports disgorging a defendant's profits." Id. at 175; see Quick Techs., Inc. v. Safe Group PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 349 (5th Cir. 2003); R R Partners, Inc. v. Tovar, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29819, at *4-5 (D. Nev. April 23, 2007). The First Circuit has stated that "when the rationale for an award of defendant's profits is to deter some egregious conduct, willfulness is required," Tamko, 282 F.3d at 36 n. 11, though the continued force of that statement has been called into question by the reasoning of the Third and Fifth Circuits.