Partner Laura Ganoza was quoted in a Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property
article, “Defense preclusion at issue in ‘Lucky’ trademark tiff before Supreme Court,” about oral arguments over what circumstances allow the doctrine of defense preclusion to apply.
Ganoza said some of the justices were open to Lucky Brand’s policy argument that affirming the 2nd Circuit’s ruling would cause defendants to offer more defenses, thereby creating unnecessary litigation. “This is a legitimate concern that would affect not just dueling apparel companies or trademark cases going forward, but would implicate all litigation, if the 2nd Circuit’s decision is affirmed,” she said. “For that reason, the justices may avoid making this type of ‘defense preclusion’ the law of the land.”