No. 22-347

Diece-Lisa Industries, Inc. v. Disney Store USA, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-10-13
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (3)
Tags: expressive-work first-amendment intellectual-property likelihood-of-confusion reverse-confusion trademark-infringement trademark-law
Latest Conference: 2023-06-15 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does the First Amendment provide an infringer blanket immunity for trademark infringement across all categories of goods so long as they can claim their first use was in an "expressive work"?

2. Assuming the First Amendment provides some level of immunity against forward trademark infringement, should courts apply the test specifically crafted for forward confusion cases in cases of reverse trademark infringement?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the First Amendment provide an infringer blanket immunity for trademark infringement across all categories of goods so long as they can claim their first use was in an 'expressive work'?

Docket Entries

2023-07-24
Judgment issued.
2023-06-20
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U. S. ___ (2023).
2023-06-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-02-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-16
2023-02-02
Brief of respondents Disney Store USA, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
2022-12-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 2, 2023.
2022-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2023 to February 2, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-12-02
Response Requested. (Due January 3, 2023)
2022-11-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-11-22
2022-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2022)

Attorneys

Diece-Lisa Industries, Inc.
William A. DelgadoDTO Law, Petitioner
Disney Store USA, LLC, et al.
Robert N. KliegerHueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent