|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.|
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
NEW: The Supreme Court agrees to take up one new case, Brown v. Davenport. It's a technical but important question about the standard for federal courts reviewing habeas claims to assess whether constitutional violations were "harmless error." https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
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.