Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

see id., at 34–41.  None of Marcel’s counterclaims alleged 
that Lucky Brand’s use of its own marks alone—i.e., inde-
pendent of any alleged use of “Get Lucky”—infringed Mar-
cel’s “Get Lucky” mark. 

Lucky Brand moved to dismiss the counterclaims, alleg-
ing  that  they  were  barred  by  the  release  provision  of  the 
settlement agreement.  After the District Court denied the 
motion  without  prejudice,  Lucky  Brand  noted  the  release 
defense once more in its answer to Marcel’s counterclaims. 
But as the 2005 Action proceeded, Lucky Brand never again 
invoked the release defense. 

The  2005  Action  concluded  in  two  phases.  First,  as  a 
sanction  for  misconduct  during  discovery,  the  District 
Court concluded that Lucky Brand violated the settlement
agreement  by  continuing  to  use  “Get  Lucky”  and  perma-
nently  enjoined  Lucky  Brand  from  copying  or  imitating 
Marcel’s “Get Lucky” mark.  Order Granting Partial Sum-
mary Judgment and Injunction in No. 1:05–cv–06757, Doc.
183; see also App. 203–204.  The injunction did not enjoin,
or even mention, Lucky Brand’s use of any other marks or 
phrases containing the word “Lucky.”  Order Granting Par-
tial Summary Judgment and Injunction, Doc. 183.  The case 
then  proceeded  to  trial.  The  jury  found  against  Lucky 
Brand on Marcel’s remaining counterclaims—those that al-
leged infringement from Lucky Brand’s continued use of the
“Get  Lucky”  catchphrase  alongside  its  own  marks.    See 
Brief for Respondent 52. 

C 
In April 2011, the third round of litigation began: Marcel
filed  an  action  against  Lucky  Brand  (2011  Action),  main-
taining  that  Lucky  Brand  continued  to  infringe  Marcel’s 
“Get Lucky” mark and, in so doing, contravened the judg-
ment issued in the 2005 Action. 

This complaint did not reprise Marcel’s earlier allegation
(in the 2005 Action) that Lucky Brand continued to use the