Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC.

Docket No.: 11-982
Certiorari Granted: Jun 25 2012
Argued: November 7, 2012
Decided: January 9, 2013

Topics:

Trademark infringement, Article I, Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mootness, abuse of discretion, antitrust, judicial review, patent, property rights, trademark

PartyNames: Already, LLC, dba Yums v. Nike, Inc.
Petitioner: Already, LLC, dba Yums
Respondent: Nike, Inc.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 663 F.3d 89
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket
Supreme Court Observer Blog Post for ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC.

Already, LLC, dba Yums
v.
Nike, Inc.
Facts:

On August 20, 2007, Already, LLC filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking issuance of a design patent on the novel, original, ornamental, and non-obvious design of the athletic shoes that would constitute the "Sweet" shoe line. Already was granted U.S. Patent No. D584,040. Marketing the "Sweet" shoe models in commerce, Already identified itself with its YUMS registered trademark, tags bearing its corporate signature logo, the letter "Y" sewn onto the shoe side panels, and distinctive point-of-sale packaging. On July 16, 2009 Nike filed a complaint against Already, claiming that sale of YUMS shoes design violated a trademark Nike filed in December of 2006, alleging Already's YUMS shoe design to be a "colorable imitation." During a pre-trial conference the judge noted that there was little similarity between the products, aside from the fact they both had shoelaces. Soon thereafter Nike chose not to move forward with the case against Already, unilaterally agreeing not to sue for infringement. This development came as a disappointment to Already, who maintains that Nike's like drawing of a shoe should not be entitled to trademark protection.

Question Presented:

Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party's challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party's then-existing commercial activities.

ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC.
ORAL ARGUMENT

November 7, 2012

Listen to Oral Argument in ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC.
Holding: AFFIRMED
Vote: 9-0
For more coverage on ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC. please see our blog posting.

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC.
Case Documents

1REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
2Petition for Writ of Certiorari
3BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
4BRIEF OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROFESSORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
5BRIEF OF PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
6BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING VACATUR AND REMAND
7BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
8BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
9BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
10BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
11ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC. Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
12ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC. Oral Argument Audio
13Slip Opinion in ALREADY, LLC v. NIKE, INC. (Opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.)