The case between Romag Fasteners Inc. and Fossil Inc., decided by the US Supreme Court in 2019, revolved around a dispute over trademark infringement. Romag Fasteners accused Fossil of using its patented fastening technology without permission in their handbags. The jury found that while Fossil had indeed infringed on Romag's patent rights, it was not done willfully. Under the Lanham Act, which governs trademarks, this meant that although there was an infringement, no damages were awarded to Romag as it could not prove any significant loss due to this non-willful violation by Fossil. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Romag stating that a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate willful infringement to be eligible for an award of profits under the Lanham Act.

In the dissenting opinion for ROMAG FASTENERS INC. v. FOSSIL INC., Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision to allow a trademark holder to recover an infringer’s profits even without proving willful infringement was inconsistent with historical practices and could lead to unjust results. She contended that traditionally, courts have required proof of willfulness before awarding profits in cases involving innocent or good-faith infringements, as this approach balances the need to deter wrongful conduct while avoiding overly harsh penalties for unintentional violations. The justice expressed concern that removing this requirement might encourage aggressive litigation by trademark holders seeking large awards, potentially stifering competition and innovation.