News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Counterclaims

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
McGlinchey Stafford

Litigation Byte (May Edition)

McGlinchey Stafford on

The Litigation Byte is the new name and format for McGlinchey’s Commercial Law Bulletin. Our new format will reflect McGlinchey’s national coverage and our expanded footprint while still serving up the digestible, insightful...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Damages Issue in Trademark Dispute Involving Construction Engineering Firm

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Dewberry Engineers Inc. (“Dewberry Engineers”), a prominent engineering firm, has been locked in an on-again, off-again trademark dispute with a real estate development firm called Dewberry Group, Inc. (“Dewberry Group”) for...more

McGlinchey Stafford

Florida Real Property & Business Litigation Report, Volume 13, Issue 26

McGlinchey Stafford on

Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020). Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a...more

WilmerHale

Supreme Court Suggests Claim Preclusion May Be Less Relevant to Trademark Cases and Questions Its Applicability to a Defense...

WilmerHale on

On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, addressing the subjects of claim and issue preclusion. The Court held that claim preclusion (or...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

A Lucky Day at the Supreme Court for Lucky Brand

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Lucky Brand has emerged victorious in the latest skirmish of its nearly 20-year trademark litigation battle with Marcel Fashions, a competitor in the apparel business. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group,...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Supreme Court Narrowly Rejects Second Circuit’s Sweeping “Defense Preclusion” Doctrine

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rebuffed the Second Circuit’s attempt to expand the scope of res judicata to include the so-called concept of “defense preclusion” – a novel doctrine that would...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Lucky Brand v. Marcel: Lucky Brand Gets Lucky on Claim Preclusion

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

The outdated pair of acid washed jeans that your dad wears to mow the lawn seem brand new in comparison to the nearly 20 years of litigation between Lucky Brand and Marcel over the use of various “Lucky” trademarks. Last...more

Goulston & Storrs PC

Supreme Court Changes Lucky Brand’s Luck in 20-Year Trademark Dispute

Goulston & Storrs PC on

On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the latest round of a 20-year long trademark dispute between Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. and Marcel Fashion Group, Inc. over the use of “Lucky.” ...more

Jackson Walker

Supreme Court Addresses “Defense Preclusion” as a Component of Res Judicata in New Trademark Decision

Jackson Walker on

In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., the United States Supreme Court recently considered for the first time whether and the extent to which it should recognize “defense preclusion” as a valid...more

Jones Day

A Lucky Day for Lucky Brand: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Second Circuit's Defense Preclusion Test - The Court rules in favor of...

Jones Day on

In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of jeans manufacturer, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky"), in its protracted trademark battle with Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. ("Marcel"), holding that Lucky...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

After Almost 20 Years of Litigation, “Lucky” Finally Gets Lucky

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

On May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., that a party is not precluded from raising new defenses, when a subsequent lawsuit between the same...more

Blank Rome LLP

Lucky Brand Gets Lucky in Trademark Fight: SCOTUS Unanimously Strikes Opponent’s Novel Defense Preclusion Theory

Blank Rome LLP on

Competitors with similar trademarks can find themselves in long-running trademark disputes, making for bitter rivals. Multiple rounds of litigation are not only contentious, but also expose litigants to procedural pitfalls....more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Marcel Fashions Group did not “get lucky” with the doctrine of defense preclusion

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On May 14, 2020, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the US Supreme Court overturned the “defense preclusion” doctrine proposed by the Second Circuit, upholding the requirement that preclusion of a defense...more

BakerHostetler

No Luck Needed for Lucky Brand at the Supreme Court

BakerHostetler on

The Supreme Court yesterday issued its second trademark decision of this term. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., Case No. 18-1086 (S. Ct. May 14, 2020), the ultimate question before the Court was...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - May 14, 2020

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086: Petitioner Lucky Brand Dungarees and respondent Marcel Fashions Group have been engaged in three separate rounds of trademark-related litigation over a...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, holding that a party is not precluded from raising defenses submitted in earlier...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

US Supreme Court Rejects ‘Defense Preclusion’ in Trademark Suit

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, finding that any preclusion of litigation defenses must comply with traditional res judicata principles, and ruling that Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. (Lucky...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Determines No Claim Preclusion of Defense in Trademark Infringement Suit

Snell & Wilmer on

Today, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group., Inc. that claim preclusion did not prevent Lucky Brand from asserting a defense it failed to fully litigate in a prior lawsuit...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Defense in Trademark Action Not Precluded by Failure to Raise Same Defense in Earlier Action

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

The Supreme Court unanimously held this week that Lucky Brand was not precluded from mounting a new defense in its litigation with Marcel Fashions Group — despite having chosen not to bring up the same defense in a prior...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Rules That Lucky Brand Is Not Precluded from Raising a Defense in a Later Suit for Failing to Litigate the Defense...

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in a long-running trademark dispute: Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No.  The question presented to the Court was whether Lucky...more

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Limited Authority to Remove Class Actions to Original Defendants, Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more

King & Spalding

Supreme Court Limits Removal Authority of Counterclaim Defendants

King & Spalding on

On May 28, 2019, a divided Supreme Court held in a 5–4 opinion that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove putative class actions to federal court under the general federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, or the...more

K&L Gates LLP

“Any Defendant” Does Not Really Mean “Any Defendant”

K&L Gates LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court Sets Limits on CAFA Removal

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

A third party brought into a lawsuit by a counterclaim filed by the original defendant is not entitled to remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled....more

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Said “No” to Class Arbitration in Employment-Related Data Breach Dispute Because Arbitration Agreement...

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more

48 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide