On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court found that Lucky Brand was not precluded from raising new defenses against Marcel in a trademark case and remanded the case to the Second Circuit. In particular, the Court decided that Lucky Brand can raise new defenses against Marcel’s claim that Lucky Brand infringed the trademark, “Get Lucky”. Both denim companies have registered trademarks with the word “Lucky” and have been in protracted litigation since 2005 over Marcel’s mark, “Get Lucky”. In 2011, Lucky Brand argued for the first time that Marcel had released its claims to the “Get Lucky” phrase in a prior settlement agreement between the two companies. Marcel argued that Lucky Brand should be precluded from raising these new defenses under the doctrine of defense preclusion, which precludes a party from relitigating an issue actually decided in a prior action and necessary to the judgment. The Court disagreed with Marcel, finding that Lucky Brand’s defense can be barred only if the “causes of action are the same” and the two suits share a “common nucleus of operative facts.” The Court found that the two suits here involved different marks and different conduct occurring at different times (i.e., the 2005 claims depended on Lucky Brand’s alleged use of “Get Lucky” while the 2011 action was directed to Lucky Brand’s use of other marks containing “Lucky” and not “Get Lucky” itself). Therefore, Lucky Brand’s defense was not precluded.