Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

8 

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

same” in the two suits—that is, where they share a “ ‘com-
mon nucleus of operative fact[s].’ ”  Brief for Respondent 2,
27, 31, 50; accord, Reply Brief 3. 

B 

Put simply, the two suits here were grounded on different 
conduct,  involving  different  marks,  occurring  at  different 
times.  They thus did not share a “common nucleus of oper-
ative facts.”  Restatement (Second) §24, Comment b, at 199. 
To start, claims to relief may be the same for the purposes
of  claim  preclusion  if,  among  other  things,  “ ‘a  different 
judgment  in  the  second  action  would  impair  or  destroy
rights or interests established by the judgment entered in
the first action.’ ”  Wright & Miller §4407.  Here, however, 
the 2011 Action did not imperil the judgment of the 2005
Action because the lawsuits involved both different conduct 
and different trademarks. 

In the 2005 Action, Marcel alleged that Lucky Brand in-
fringed Marcel’s “Get Lucky” mark both by directly imitat-
ing its “Get Lucky” mark and by using the “Get Lucky” slo-
gan  alongside  Lucky  Brand’s  other  marks  in  a  way  that 
created consumer confusion.  Brief for Respondent 52.  Mar-
cel appears to admit, thus, that its claims in the 2005 Action
depended on Lucky Brand’s alleged use of “Get Lucky.”  Id., 
at 9–10 (“Marcel’s reverse-confusion theory [in the 2005 Ac-
tion] depended, in part, on Lucky’s continued imitation of 
the GET LUCKY mark”).

By contrast, the 2011 Action did not involve any alleged 
use of the “Get Lucky” phrase.  Indeed, Lucky Brand had
been enjoined in the 2005 Action from using “Get Lucky,” 
and in the 2011 Action, Lucky Brand was found not to have 
violated that injunction.  779 F. 3d, at 111–112.  The parties
thus do not argue that Lucky Brand continued to use “Get 
Lucky” after the 2005 Action concluded, and at oral argu-
ment, counsel for Marcel appeared to confirm that Marcel’s
claims in the 2011 Action did not allege that Lucky Brand