1. The success of John Dewberry’s overall business comes in part from trademark infringement -- specifically, from Dewberry Group’s violation of Dewberry Engineers’ trademark rights in the “Dewberry” name.

2. (If that sentence is confusing -- too darn many Dewberrys -- it is also a good illustration of why trademarks exist: to prevent consumers from being confused about which company is providing a product or service.)

3. The Engineers chose not to add the Group’s property -- owning affiliates as defendants.

4. Judge Quattlebaum dissented. He would have held that the District Court had no authority, in calculating a defendant’s profits, to “simply add the revenues [of] non -- parties.”

5. And that demand fits hand -- in -- glove with the Lanham Act’s text

6. In the Engineers’ view, that so -- called just -- sum provision enables a court, after first assessing the “defendant’s profits,” to determine that a different figure better reflects the “defendant’s true financial gain.”

7. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13; see id., at 18 -- 22, 30 -- 34.

8. The only way to reach the District Court’s whole -- sale result was to take a simpler tack: to lump together Dewberry Group and its affiliates as (in the court’s own words) a single entity.