CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent
By Taromsky - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77136501

Lucky Brand Gets Lucky at Supreme Court

Lucky Dungarees
Gets lucky at Supreme Court;
Defense is allowed

The US Supreme Court has ruled that issue preclusion doesn’t bar Lucky Brand from litigating a defense in a trademark infringement case that it failed to raise in an easier case.

The case, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., involves a dispute between Marcel and Lucky Brand, both of which sell jeans and other apparel. Both companies use the word “Lucky” as part of their marks on clothing.

Marcel received a federal trademark for “Get Lucky” in 1986. Lucky Brand began using the registered trademark “Lucky Brand” in 1990.

The companies have been fighting over the “Lucky” marks since Marcel sued Lucky Brand in 2001. That suit ended in a 2003 settlement in which Lucky Brand agreed to stop using “Get Lucky” and Marcel agreed to release any claims about Lucky Brand’s use of Marcel’s marks.

Several more lawsuits followed as the companies expanded their product lines.

In the latest case, Lucky Brand successfully moved to dismiss based on the terms of the settlement agreement. Marcel appealed, arguing that Lucky Brand had failed to use that argument in a previous case.

As the Court noted,

This case asks whether so-called “defense preclusion” is a valid application of res judicata: a term comprising the doctrine of issue preclusion, which precludes a party from relitigating an issue actually decided in a prior action and necessary to the judgment, and the doctrine of claim preclusion, which prevents parties from raising issues that could have been raised and decided in a prior action.

The Court held that because Marcel’s 2011 suit challenged different conduct by Lucky Brand, and raised different claims than an earlier suit, Lucky Brand wasn’t precluded from raising new defenses:

Because the two suits here involved different marks and different conduct occurring at different times, they did not share a “common nucleus of operative facts.”


Just like the haiku above, we like to keep our posts short and sweet. Hopefully, you found this bite-sized information helpful. If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact us here.

Related Articles

AEON Law Founder Adam Philipp Ranked Among Leading IP Lawyers in Chambers USA Guide

AEON Law founder Adam Philipp is included in this year’s Chambers USA guide of the leading IP attorneys in AEON’s home market of Washington. Based ...
Read More

AEON Law and Founder Adam Philipp Ranked Among World’s Top Patent Professionals in IAM Guide

AEON Law and founder Adam Philipp are recognized in this year’s IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals. Adam was recommended for patent prosecution ...
Read More

Understanding the Dawn Donut Rule for Trademarks

In trademark law, the general rule is that, where two parties seek to use the same trademark in the same geographic area, the earlier (“senior”) ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854

SERVICES

PROTECT

DEAL

DEFEND