|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|20-365||9th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether a commercial product using humor is subject to the same likelihood-of-confusion analysis applicable to other products under the Lanham Act, or must receive heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims, where the brand owner must prove that the defendant’s use of the mark either is “not artistically relevant” or “explicitly misleads consumers”; and (2) whether a commercial product’s use of humor renders the product “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C), thus barring as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Lanham Act.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 15 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 19, 2020)|
|Oct 07 2020||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc.|
|Oct 09 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 19, 2020 to November 18, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 18, 2020.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Alcohol Beverage Industry Associations filed.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago filed.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Campari America LLC filed.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Constellation Brands, Inc. filed.|
|Oct 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Campbell Soup Company filed.|
|Nov 10 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 18, 2020 to December 18, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 16 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended by agreement of the parties to and including December 16, 2020.|
|Dec 16 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Trademark Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 16 2020||Brief of respondent VIP Products LLC in opposition filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 21 2020||Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition under 15.5 filed.|
|Dec 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 23 2020||Reply of petitioner Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2021||Petition DENIED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.