Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Nov 7, 2012
|Jan 9, 2012||9-0||Roberts||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Holding: Nike's unconditional and irrevocable covenant not to enforce a trademark against a competitor’s existing products and any future “colorable imitations” moots the competitor’s action to have the trademark declared invalid.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on January 9, 2012. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor joined.
- Opinion recap: A promise better be a promise
- Argument recap: Play-acting as CEOs
- Argument preview: Does no suit mean no suit?
- Is the new economy driving the Court’s docket?
|Date||Proceedings and Orders|
|Feb 8 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 12, 2012)|
|Mar 6 2012||Waiver of right of respondent Nike, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Mar 21 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2012.|
|Apr 4 2012||Response Requested . (Due May 4, 2012)|
|Apr 17 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 4, 2012.|
|Jun 4 2012||Brief of respondent Nike, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 8 2012||Reply of petitioner Already, LLC, dba Yums filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, November 7, 2012|
|Jul 24 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2012.|
|Aug 3 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 3 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 2nd. This record is electronic.|
|Aug 3 2012||Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District is electronic.|
|Aug 16 2012||Joint appendix and supplemental joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 16 2012||Brief of petitioner Already, LLC d/b/a YUMS filed.|
|Aug 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting Vacatur and Remand filed.|
|Aug 23 2012||Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Public Patent Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 23 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Sep 11 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Sep 24 2012||Brief of respondent Nike, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 1 2012||Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 1 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 1 2012||Brief amici curiae of Levi Strauss & Co., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 15 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 24 2012||Reply of petitioner Already, LLC d/b/a YUMS filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 7 2012||Argued. Fpr petitioner: James W. Dabney, New York, N. Y. For United States as amicus curiae: Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 9 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Feb 11 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|