Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–1086 
_________________ 

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

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

[May 14, 2020] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This case arises from protracted litigation between peti-
tioners  Lucky  Brand  Dungarees,  Inc.,  and  others  (collec-
tively  Lucky  Brand)  and  respondent  Marcel  Fashions
Group, Inc. (Marcel).  In the latest lawsuit between the two, 
Lucky Brand asserted a defense against Marcel that it had 
not  pressed  fully  in  a  preceding  suit  between  the  parties.
This  Court  is  asked  to  determine  whether  Lucky  Brand’s
failure  to  litigate  the  defense  in  the  earlier  suit  barred 
Lucky Brand from invoking it in the later suit.  Because the 
parties agree that, at a minimum, the preclusion of such a 
defense in this context requires that the two suits share the 
same claim to relief—and because we find that the two suits 
here did not—Lucky Brand was not barred from raising its
defense in the later action. 

I 
Marcel  and  Lucky  Brand  both  sell  jeans  and  other  ap-
parel.  Both  entities  also  use  the word  “Lucky”  as  part  of 
their marks on clothing.  In 1986, Marcel received a federal 
trademark registration for “Get Lucky”; a few years later,