Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Converse, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2497 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2018)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2497
Decided
June 7, 2018
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CONVERSE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., FKA NEW

BALANCE ATHLETIC SHOE, INC., HU

LIQUIDATION, LLC, FKA HIGHLINE UNITED LLC,

Intervenors

2016-2497

Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-936.

SUA SPONTE

Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

22 CONVERSE, INC. v. ITC

This case, having been submitted after oral argument on February 8, 2018, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

No later than June 27, 2018, the parties shall file simultaneous letter briefs, not to exceed 15 double-spaced pages, addressing the following. Under Aromatique, Inc. v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 870 (8th Cir. 1994), and related cases, the presumption of secondary meaning applies only from the date of registration forward. Accordingly:

1. Was Converse required to show priority in the

mark (i.e., secondary meaning at the time of first infringement) without regard to the presumption of validity that would exist if its trademark registration is valid?

2. What significance does the registration of the mark

or its validity have in these proceedings? 3. Was it necessary or appropriate for the ITC to ad-

dress the validity of the registered mark?

FOR THE COURT

June 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Converse, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2497 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2497-20180607
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2497-20180607

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.