October Term 2019 · Docket 18-1086
Can a court bar a new defense in a case with new claims?
The parties dispute whether a prior judgment bars a defense in a new lawsuit.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Cendali argued the Second Circuit erred in its preclusion holding.
Mr. Kimberly described a dispute resolved with a final judgment on the merits.
Justice Alito questioned the scope of barring defenses in subsequent actions.
Justice Ginsburg questioned the jury instructions regarding the word Lucky.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 25-43 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 25-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Lucky Brand Dungarees and Marcel Fashions Group fought over trademark rights. The Second Circuit ruled against Lucky Brand. Lucky Brand asks the Supreme Court to reverse that lower-court decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 13, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
Lucky Brand wants the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit decision.
Marcel Fashions Group wants the Supreme Court to affirm the Second Circuit decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
What each side says
Lucky Brand argues the Second Circuit erred by barring a defense in a case with new claims.
Marcel Fashions Group argues the prior judgment bars the defense in the subsequent action.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if the rule extends to collateral attacks on a judgment.
Justice Ginsburg asked how the release treated different uses of the word Lucky.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 25-43 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 25-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of preclusion in trademark disputes. It determines whether prior judgments limit defenses in future lawsuits. The outcome shapes how parties structure settlements and subsequent litigation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-25 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 25-43 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 25-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 53-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 53-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-17 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.