Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

“free  to  find  infringement  of  Marcel’s  ‘Get  Lucky’  mark 
based  solely  on  Lucky  Brand’s  use  of  [the  phrase]  ‘Get 
Lucky.’ ”  Id., at 112.  The court vacated and remanded for 
further proceedings.

On remand to the District Court, Lucky Brand moved to
dismiss, arguing—for the first time since its motion to dis-
miss and answer in the 2005 Action—that Marcel had re-
leased  its  claims  by  entering  the  settlement  agreement. 
Marcel countered that Lucky Brand was precluded from in-
voking the release defense, because it could have pursued 
the defense fully in the 2005 Action but had neglected to do 
so.  The District Court granted Lucky Brand’s motion to dis-
miss,  holding  that  it  could  assert  its  release  defense  and 
that  the  settlement  agreement  indeed  barred  Marcel’s
claims. 

The  Second  Circuit  vacated  and  remanded,  concluding
that  a  doctrine  it  termed  “defense  preclusion”  prohibited
Lucky Brand from raising the release defense in the 2011
Action.  898 F. 3d 232 (2018).  Noting that a different cate-
gory  of  preclusion—issue  preclusion—may  be  wielded 
against a defendant, see Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 
U. S. 322 (1979), the court reasoned that the same should 
be  true  of  claim  preclusion:  A  defendant  should  be  pre-
cluded  from  raising  an  unlitigated  defense  that  it  should
have raised earlier.  The panel then held that “defense pre-
clusion”  bars  a  party  from  raising  a  defense  where:  “(i)  a
previous action involved an adjudication on the merits”; “(ii) 
the previous action involved the same parties”; “(iii) the de-
fense  was  either  asserted  or  could  have  been  asserted,  in 
the prior action”; and “(iv) the district court, in its discre-
tion,  concludes  that  preclusion of the  defense  is  appropri-
ate.”  898 F. 3d, at 241.  Finding each factor satisfied in this
case, the panel vacated the District Court’s judgment.  We 
granted  certiorari,  588  U. S.  ___  (2019),  to  resolve  differ-
ences  among  the  Circuits  regarding  when,  if  ever,  claim