{"id":5700,"date":"2012-11-07T23:06:55","date_gmt":"2012-11-08T05:06:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=5700"},"modified":"2012-11-09T19:35:05","modified_gmt":"2012-11-10T01:35:05","slug":"oral-argument-of-already-v-nike","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=5700","title":{"rendered":"Oral Argument of Already v. Nike"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today in the case of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Already v. Nike<\/span>. \u00a0The question presented is:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party&#8217;s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party&#8217;s then-existing commercial activities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The transcript of the oral argument is available here: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_transcripts\/11-982.pdf\">link.<\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: mceinline;\">The audio of the oral argument is available [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-982\">here.<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: mceinline;\">Justice Breyer&#8217;s famous comment is available [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/11\/11-982-real-world.mp3\">here<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The briefs are available here:<\/p>\n<h3>Merit Briefs<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_pet.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Petitioner Already, LLC<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_respondent.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Respondent Nike, Inc.<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_pet_reply.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Reply Brief For Petitioner<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Amicus Briefs<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_petitioneramcuipprofs.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petitioners<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_petitioner_amcu_ppf.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Public Patent Foundation in Support of Petitioner<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_resp_amcu_aipla.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for the American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Respondent<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_resp_amcu_ita.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for the International Trademark Association in Support of Respondent<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_resp_amcu_lsac-etal.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Levi Strauss &amp; Co. and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in Support of Respondent<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_vacaturamcuusa.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for the United States in Support of Vacatur and Remand<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publications\/supreme_court_preview\/briefs\/11-982_neither_amcu_ipoa.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Brief for Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today in the case of Already v. Nike. \u00a0The question presented is: Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party&#8217;s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5700"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5700"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5700\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5703,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5700\/revisions\/5703"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}