This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. (the petitioner) and Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. (the respondent) appeared before the Supreme Court for oral argument.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Court concluded the oral argument session.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked why the petitioner abandoned the release defense in the first action after having raised it.
Justice Gorsuch raised a concern about asymmetry, asking whether barring a claim in a later action would solve the problem.
Justice Kavanaugh asked a follow‑up question (the transcript is incomplete).
Justice Sotomayor asked about the meaning of the 2005 (or 2003) settlement agreement.
Justice Kagan asked whether a judgment enforcement action and a collateral attack on a judgment are different.
What each side argues
Petitioner – Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.
According to Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., petitioner argues the Court should reverse the Second Circuit because it erred in holding that a defense never previously litigated to judgment can be barred when new claims arise.
According to Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., petitioner clarifies it is not arguing that defenses can never be barred; issue preclusion may bar a previously resolved defense, and unresolved defenses cannot be raised in a judgment enforcement action or in a collateral attack on a prior judgment.
According to Lucky, petitioner explains the settlement agreement required Lucky to stop using the phrase “Get Lucky,” but that trademarks containing “Lucky” that were used before the settlement are extinguished.
According to Lucky, petitioner states the settlement does not prevent the use of the “Get Lucky” trademark.
Respondent – Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.
According to Mr. Kimberly, respondent argues that failure to raise a defense in a prior action can bar raising that defense in later actions.
According to Mr. Kimberly, respondent relies on the City of Beloit case (1968) to support its proposition.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked why the petitioner abandoned the release defense in the first action after having raised it.
Justice Gorsuch raised a concern about asymmetry, asking whether barring a claim in a later action would solve the problem.
Justice Kavanaugh asked a follow‑up question (the transcript is incomplete).
Justice Sotomayor asked about the meaning of the 2005 (or 2003) settlement agreement.
Justice Kagan asked whether a judgment enforcement action and a collateral attack on a judgment are different.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 68cf4ae55c4428feda9c-r1-11b7eb020fd6053d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.