Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 4

2 

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC. v. 
MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

in 1990, Lucky Brand began selling apparel using the reg-
istered trademark “Lucky Brand” and other marks that in-
clude the word “Lucky.”  779 F. 3d 102, 105 (CA2 2015).

Three categories of marks are at issue in this case: Mar-
cel’s  “Get  Lucky”  mark;  Lucky  Brand’s  “Lucky  Brand” 
mark; and various other marks owned by Lucky Brand that
contain  the  word  “Lucky.”    These  trademarks  have  led  to 
nearly  20  years  of  litigation  between  the  two  companies, 
proceeding in three rounds. 

A 
In 2001—the first round—Marcel sued Lucky Brand, al-
leging that Lucky Brand’s use of the phrase “Get Lucky” in 
advertisements infringed Marcel’s trademark.  In 2003, the 
parties signed a settlement agreement.  As part of the deal, 
Lucky Brand agreed to stop using the phrase “Get Lucky.”
App. 191.  In exchange, Marcel agreed to release any claims 
regarding Lucky Brand’s use of its own trademarks.  Id., at 
191–192. 

B 
The  ink  was  barely  dry  on  the  settlement  agreement
when, in 2005, the parties began a second round of litiga-
tion  (2005  Action).  Lucky  Brand  filed  suit,  alleging  that 
Marcel and its licensee violated its trademarks by copying 
its  designs  and  logos  in  a  new  clothing  line.    As  relevant 
here, Marcel filed several counterclaims that all turned, in 
large part, on Lucky Brand’s alleged continued use of “Get
Lucky”: One batch of allegations asserted that Lucky Brand
had continued to use Marcel’s “Get Lucky” mark in viola-
tion of the settlement agreement, while others alleged that 
Lucky  Brand’s  use  of  the  phrase  “Get  Lucky”  and  “Lucky
Brand” together was “confusingly similar to”—and thus in-
fringed––Marcel’s “Get Lucky” mark.  Defendants’ Answer, 
Affirmative  Defenses,  and  Counterclaims  to  Plaintiffs’ 
Complaint in No. 1:05–cv–06757 (SDNY), Doc. 40–2, p. 39;