Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC., ET AL. v. MARCEL 
FASHIONS GROUP, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 18–1086.  Argued January 13, 2020—Decided May 14, 2020 

Petitioners (collectively Lucky Brand) and respondent (Marcel) both use 
the word “Lucky” as part of their marks on jeans and other apparel. 
Marcel received a trademark registration for the phrase “Get Lucky,”
and Lucky Brand uses the registered trademark “Lucky Brand” and
other marks with the word “Lucky.”  This has led to nearly 20 years of 
litigation,  proceeding  in  three  rounds.    The  first  round  resulted  in  a 
2003 settlement agreement in which Lucky Brand agreed to stop using
the  phrase  “Get  Lucky”  and  Marcel  agreed  to  release  any claims  re-
garding Lucky Brand’s use of its own trademarks.  In the second round 
(2005 Action), Lucky Brand sued Marcel and its licensee for violating
its  trademarks.    Marcel  filed  several  counterclaims  turning,  as  rele-
vant here, on Lucky Brand’s alleged continued use of “Get Lucky,” but 
it  did  not  claim  that  Lucky  Brand’s  use  of  its  own  marks  alone  in-
fringed the “Get Lucky” mark.  In both a motion to dismiss the coun-
terclaims and an answer to them, Lucky Brand argued that the coun-
terclaims  were  barred  by  the  settlement  agreement,  but  it  did  not 
invoke  that  defense  later  in  the  proceedings.    The  court  in  the  2005 
Action permanently enjoined Lucky Brand from copying or imitating
Marcel’s “Get Lucky” mark, and a jury found against Lucky Brand on 
Marcel’s remaining counterclaims.  In the third round (2011 Action), 
Marcel sued Lucky Brand for continuing to infringe the “Get Lucky”
mark, but it did not reprise its 2005 allegation about Lucky Brand’s
use  of  the  “Get  Lucky”  phrase.  After  protracted  litigation,  Lucky
Brand moved to dismiss, arguing—for the first time since early in the 
2005  Action—that  Marcel  had  released  its  claims  in  the  settlement 
agreement.  Marcel countered that Lucky Brand could not invoke the
release defense because it could have pursued that defense in the 2005