Two meaningless assholes in the fashion industry are fighting about the word “lucky” here. Marcel Fashions, in their infinite marketing genius, came up with a “Get Lucky” marketing campaign which I’ve never even heard of.
Lucky Brand Dungarees comes along, and puts their actual name on their products.
Somehow, Marcel believes that Lucky Brand as a name is somehow infringing on their “Get Lucky” marketing campaign, and therefore sued for copyright infringement.
Eventually these two worthless fucks settled their dispute in 2003, and Lucky brand agreed to stop using certain campaigns Marcel took offense to, specifically they agreed not to use anything saying “get lucky,” and Marcel agreed not to sue anymore as long as they didn’t.
As any company does, Lucky Brand continued making new marketing campaigns, and of course, those campaigns involved the word “Lucky,” which then pissed off Marcel, despite the fact they continued to avoid using “Get Lucky” as per their agreement. So Marcel would sue yet again, and Lucky Brands would be like, “We settled this, you assholes. We have a deal, remember?”
But then Marcel was like, “But these are new uses that hurt our feelings in a new way, and therefore aren’t part of our original settlement.”
So there’s a preclusion rule, that is basically designed to prevent companies from re-litigating the same shit over and over again. Settle it once and for all and move the fuck on already. These assholes have been going at this for 20 fucking years.
So SCOTUS is being asked to decide if preclusion rules apply here, and therefore should Marcel politely go fuck themselves.
Marcel is arguing that basically every time Lucky launches a new campaign with Lucky in the campaign, it can’t possibly have been included in the original settlement, since it happened after the fact. Therefore, they have cause to sue if their feelings are hurt by the new campaign.
Lucky Brands is arguing that Lucky is part of their name, and they should be able to use their own damn name. Plus, there’s no way when they settled, that they could anticipate what they were going to come up with as a marketing plan in future years. So as long as they seem to be in line with the spirit of the settlement, Marcel are just being a bunch of whiny little bitches. They also contend they agreed not to use “Get Lucky” which they’ve continued not to do. So they’re in compliance with their agreement.
In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with Lucky Brand. That this matter was settled with their initial agreement, and Marcel can fuck right the hell off. Lucky Brand’s defense can be used to defend against these new claims, because these new uses are different than the claim that was settled previously, with the use of “Get Lucky,” and therefore such claims should be dismissed.
Hear oral arguments and read about the case here.