Sonate v. Beyond Meat — Court Cuts Actual Damages but Awards $15.4 Million in Profits

Background

Sonate Corporation, which does business as Vegadelphia Foods, owns the registered slogan “Where Great Taste is Plant Based.” After a two-week trial, a jury found that Beyond Meat infringed the mark by using “PLANT BASED GREAT TASTE” and “GREAT TASTE PLANT BASED.” The jury awarded $23.5 million in actual damages and recommended $15.4 million in disgorged profits.

Beyond renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law on actual damages. Sonate sought additional disgorgement, enhanced damages, and prejudgment interest.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Indira Talwani reduced the actual-damages award from $23.5 million to $37,500. Sonate presented minimally sufficient evidence that infringement contributed to declining profits in its existing business, but its much larger theories depended on speculative future growth and a hypothetical sale of an unlaunched “Vegadelphia 2.0” venture. Those projections did not establish recoverable lost profits with reasonable certainty.

The court nevertheless accepted the jury’s advisory recommendation to disgorge $15.4 million of Beyond’s profits as a rough measure of harm not captured by actual damages. The jury had found direct competition, willful infringement, and $109 million in profits attributable to Beyond’s use of “PLANT BASED GREAT TASTE.” Although profit disgorgement is equitable and the recommended amount was not binding, the court concluded that the jury’s factual findings constrained the analysis and that the $15.4 million figure was reasonable.

The court refused to increase that award. There was little evidence that Beyond tried to capture Sonate’s customers or goodwill, and no identified instance of actual consumer confusion. Because the resulting $15,437,500 judgment already greatly exceeded measures of Sonate’s existing business, more disgorgement or enhanced damages would be punitive rather than compensatory. The court also denied prejudgment interest, concluding that Section 1117(a) does not expressly authorize it and that this was not an exceptional case even if such interest were discretionary.

Key Takeaways

• Trademark damages for an existing business require evidence tying lost profits to infringement, but the proof need not be mathematically precise.
• Speculative projections for a future venture cannot support a large actual-damages award without reliable evidence of causation and amount.
• A jury’s factual findings may bind the court even when the ultimate profit-disgorgement remedy is equitable and advisory.
• Willfulness alone does not require maximum disgorgement, enhanced damages, or prejudgment interest; Lanham Act monetary relief must compensate rather than punish.

Why It Matters

The decision sharply separates compensatory damages from equitable profit disgorgement. Sonate kept a substantial recovery despite losing almost all of the jury’s actual-damages award because the court treated a portion of Beyond’s profits as a reasonable proxy for otherwise difficult-to-measure harm. At the same time, the ruling shows that willfulness does not eliminate the Lanham Act’s guardrails against speculative awards and punitive windfalls.

Full Opinion