Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
| 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.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion recap: A promise better be a promise (Lyle Denniston, January 9, 2013)
- Argument recap: Play-acting as CEOs (Lyle Denniston, November 7, 2012)
- Argument preview: Does no suit mean no suit? (Lyle Denniston, November 6, 2012)
- Is the new economy driving the Courts docket? (Ronald Mann, October 15, 2012)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 02/08/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 12, 2012) |
| 03/06/2012 | Waiver of right of respondent Nike, Inc. to respond filed. |
| 03/21/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2012. |
| 04/04/2012 | Response Requested . (Due May 4, 2012) |
| 04/17/2012 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 4, 2012. |
| 06/04/2012 | Brief of respondent Nike, Inc. in opposition filed. |
| 06/05/2012 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012. |
| 06/08/2012 | Reply of petitioner Already, LLC, dba Yums filed. (Distributed) |
| 06/25/2012 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 07/23/2012 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, November 7, 2012 |
| 07/24/2012 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2012. |
| 08/03/2012 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2012. |
| 08/03/2012 | Record received from U.S.C.A. for 2nd. This record is electronic. |
| 08/03/2012 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District is electronic. |
| 08/16/2012 | Joint appendix and supplemental joint appendix filed. |
| 08/16/2012 | Brief of petitioner Already, LLC d/b/a YUMS filed. |
| 08/23/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting Vacatur and Remand filed. |
| 08/23/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/23/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Patent Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/23/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/24/2012 | CIRCULATED. |
| 09/11/2012 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the respondent. |
| 09/24/2012 | Brief of respondent Nike, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/28/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/01/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/01/2012 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 10/01/2012 | Brief amici curiae of Levi Strauss & Co., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/15/2012 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 10/24/2012 | Reply of petitioner Already, LLC d/b/a YUMS filed. (Distributed) |
| 11/07/2012 | 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. |
| 01/09/2013 | 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. |
| 02/11/2013 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
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.