Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRes JudicataClaim PreclusionIssue Preclusionres judicataclaim preclusionissue preclusiondefense preclusion

Facts

Marcel owns the "Get Lucky" mark, while Lucky Brand uses the "Lucky Brand" mark and other marks containing the word "Lucky." In a 2003 settlement, Lucky Brand agreed to stop using "Get Lucky," and Marcel released claims regarding Lucky Brand's use of its own trademarks. In the 2005 action, Marcel's counterclaims depended on Lucky Brand's alleged use of "Get Lucky," either directly or alongside Lucky Brand's own marks, and Lucky Brand mentioned but did not pursue the settlement-release defense through the case. In the 2011 action, Marcel did not allege renewed use of "Get Lucky"; instead, it challenged Lucky Brand's post-2010 use of Lucky Brand's own marks containing "Lucky," and Lucky Brand invoked the settlement release as a defense.

Issue

When a defendant failed to fully litigate a defense in an earlier lawsuit, may the plaintiff invoke claim preclusion to bar that defense in a later lawsuit? More specifically, can Marcel preclude Lucky Brand from asserting its settlement-release defense in the 2011 action when that action involved different alleged infringing conduct from the 2005 action?

Rule

Any preclusion of a defense must at least satisfy ordinary issue-preclusion or claim-preclusion requirements. Where issue preclusion does not apply, a defense may be barred only if the two suits involve the same claim, meaning they arise from the same transaction or share a common nucleus of operative facts; claim preclusion generally does not bar claims predicated on events occurring after the filing of the initial complaint.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2018, Harbor Thread Co. sued Pine Street Apparel in Chicago for using the slogan "Silver Tide" on jackets. Pine Street mentioned in its answer that a 2016 settlement released some claims, but it never pursued that defense, and the case ended in a judgment about the slogan use. In 2022, Harbor Thread filed a new suit in Illinois federal court alleging that Pine Street's post-2021 use of a different mark, "Pine Street Silver," on jeans infringed Harbor Thread's "Silver Tide" mark.

Harbor Thread argues Pine Street is barred from asserting the 2016 release because Pine Street could have fully litigated that defense in the 2018 case. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. Any preclusion of a later-raised defense must at least satisfy ordinary issue-preclusion or claim-preclusion requirements. Where issue preclusion does not apply, the defense can be barred only if the two suits involve the same claim, meaning they arise from the same transaction or share a common nucleus of operative facts. Here, the second suit targets a different mark and post-2021 conduct, so it is a new claim rather than the same one. The Court rejected any free-floating doctrine that a defense is barred merely because it could have been litigated earlier. (Derived from Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. (n.d.).)