|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-46||4th Cir.||May 4, 2020||Jun 30, 2020||8-1||Ginsburg||OT 2019|
Holding: A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services—and thus ineligible for federal trademark protection—only if the term has that meaning to consumers.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 30, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 05 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2019)|
|Aug 07 2019||Brief of respondent Booking.com B.V. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 21 2019||Reply of petitioners United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. filed.|
|Oct 09 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.|
|Nov 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.|
|Nov 08 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 09 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Dec 10 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 6, 2020. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 12, 2020.|
|Jan 06 2020||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jan 06 2020||Brief of petitioners United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||Brief amici curiae of Trademark Scholars in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed.|
|Jan 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 23, 2020.|
|Feb 12 2020||Brief of respondent Booking.com B.V. filed.|
|Feb 19 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Feb 19 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amici curiae of Trademark and Internet Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amici curiae of Salesforce.com, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amici curiae of Survey Scholars and Consultants filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Association of Amicus Counsel filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amici curiae of Professor Peter N. Golder, Ph.D., and other Marketing Academics filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Internet Commerce Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Coalition of .Com Brand Owners filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2020||The record is located on PACER. Sealed record material from the USCA 4th Circuit electronically received.|
|Mar 13 2020||Reply of petitioners United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2020||ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED.|
|Apr 13 2020||Argument to be rescheduled for May 2020.|
|Apr 15 2020||RESCHEDULED FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, May 4, 2020.|
|May 04 2020||Argued. For petitioners: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 30 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Aug 03 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
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!
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.