Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Jennifer Lee Taylor and Eoin Connolly authored an article for Law360 covering the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., which reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision precluding Lucky from raising a release defense.

Preclusion in Trademark Cases After High Court Lucky Ruling

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Jennifer Lee Taylor and Eoin Connolly authored an article for Law360 covering the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., which reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision precluding Lucky from raising a release defense.“What may have a [large] impact on future litigation…is the court’s statement that preclusion is particularly unsuited to trademark issues due to ever-changing market realities,” the authors wrote. “It would not be surprising to see this language cited with some frequency in the future. Parties who lose in opposition or cancellation proceedings before the board will likely point to this as a reason why claims or defenses should not be precluded in later infringement actions.”Read the <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt8a2d541faa505fd3/6273ee475f7b601eaaebea6f/200520-preclusion-trademark-cases-law360.pdf">full article</a>.