## Facts

- Texas Pig Stands, Inc. (TPS) operated a restaurant chain that had substantially contracted by the time of suit and owned a federal registration for “PIG SANDWICH” for a barbecued pork sandwich.
- Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. (Hard Rock) operated theme restaurants and began selling a barbecued pork “pig sandwich” in Tennessee around 1982, later offering it in other locations, including Dallas.
- The term “pig sandwich” had long been used in Tennessee to describe a regional barbecue dish.
- TPS and Hard Rock did not operate simultaneously in the same city; in Dallas, TPS had closed its location more than a year before Hard Rock opened.
- TPS sued under the Lanham Act, alleging Hard Rock’s use of “pig sandwich” infringed TPS’s registered mark and seeking disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and an injunction.
- A jury found infringement and unjust enrichment, but the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on unjust enrichment, finding no evidentiary basis to infer any profits were attributable to the infringement.
- The district court nonetheless deemed the case “exceptional” and awarded TPS over $400,000 in attorneys’ fees and entered a permanent injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether TPS could recover Hard Rock’s profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) without evidence that any portion of those profits was attributable to the infringing use of the mark.
2. Whether the record supported treating the matter as an “exceptional case” justifying attorneys’ fees under § 1117(a).
3. Whether injunctive relief had to be narrowed based on TPS’s limited geographic presence and withdrawal from certain markets.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Hard Rock’s profits, agreeing the evidence did not support an inference that any profits from “pig sandwich” sales were attributable to infringement.
- The Fifth Circuit held the district court’s “exceptional case” rationale was overbroad and that ordinary infringement and disparity in company size did not justify the full attorneys’ fee award.
- The Fifth Circuit required injunctive relief to be tailored to TPS’s actual protectable interests and realistic likelihood of confusion, not markets where TPS lacked current goodwill or presence.

## Legal Principles

- Disgorgement of profits under § 1117(a) requires an evidentiary basis to link some portion of the defendant’s profits to the infringing use; a plaintiff is not entitled to profits demonstrably not attributable to infringement.
- Lack of direct competition or direct proof of diverted sales does not automatically bar profits, but a profits award cannot rest on speculation where the record negates causation.
- “Exceptional case” fees under § 1117(a) generally require clear evidence of willful, malicious, fraudulent, or bad-faith conduct; economic disparity and ordinary infringement are insufficient.
- Injunctive relief in trademark cases must reflect current, protectable goodwill and be limited to markets where confusion is realistically threatened.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld denial of disgorgement because TPS failed to show any Hard Rock profits were attributable to infringement, rejected an expansive “exceptional case” fee award unsupported by egregious conduct, and narrowed injunctive relief to match TPS’s existing goodwill and likely markets.


Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Cafe Int’l, Inc., 951 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1992)