|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-982||2d Cir.||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.
|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.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.