Converse, Inc. v. Itc

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: June 7, 2018
• Docket: 16-2497
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. PER CURIAM. ORDER 2 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. Ac- cordingly:

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 registra- tion 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