On May 31, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow, a case involving claims of contributory trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc., design and sell well-known luxury goods, including handbags. Goodfellow was the owner and operator of a flea market in Tennessee. Coach became aware of sales of counterfeit Coach goods at Goodfellow's flea market and, in 2010, Coach filed suit against Goodfellow under the Lanham Act. Coach alleged that Goodfellow was contributorially liable for the counterfeits' sale and infringement of Coach's trademarks. In 2011, Coach filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the district court granted on the issue of contributory liability. After Goodfellow's liability was established, a jury trial was conducted on the issue of damages. The jury awarded Coach $5,040,000 in damages and the district court entered judgment on the verdict, granting Coach a permanent injunction. The district court also awarded Coach $186,666.61 in attorney's fees and costs, finding that the case was exceptional under the Lanham Act.

On appeal the issue was whether, under the Lanham Act, a flea market operator can be held contributorially liable for the trademark infringement of vendors at the market. In its May 31, 2013, opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that Goodfellow could be held contributorially liable for trademark infringement because he knew or had reason to know of the infringing activities but nevertheless:

The Sixth Circuit explained that contributory liability for trademark infringement was first recognized by the US Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. Under Inwood, contributory liability may be imposed on a distributor that either:

The Sixth Circuit noted that Inwood had been applied to flea market operators by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. The Sixth Circuit then explained that because Goodfellow continued to rent space to vendors that he knew or should have known were engaging in infringing activity, these facts were sufficient to support contributory liability under Inwood, as applied by other circuits. Further, the Sixth Circuit pointed out that Goodfellow failed to undertake a reasonable investigation or other appropriate remedial measures.

The Sixth Circuit stated that Goodfellow's actual knowledge of the counterfeit sales was established by several facts, including:

The court noted that Goodfellow failed to deny access to offending vendors or take other reasonable measures to stop the infringing activity, distinguishing the facts of Tiffany v. eBay where the court found that eBay was not liable for the sales of counterfeit goods on its website because it promptly removed challenged items and took steps to monitor remove the counterfeit merchandise.

On the issue of attorneys' fees, the district court held that this was an exceptional case justifying attorney's fees because:

The Sixth Circuit upheld the award, finding that the district court was well within its discretion to find that Goodfellow's intentional, deliberate or willful ignorance of actual notice of infringing activity made out an exceptional case permitting an award of attorney's fees.