United States Court of Appeals, 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
Decided: June 07, 2018
Before Dyk, O’Malley, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.
Christopher J. Renk, Aaron Patrick Bowling, Counsel, Michael Joseph Harris, Attorney, Audra Carol Eidem Heinze, Erik Stephan Maurer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Dale M. Cendali, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, John C. O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellant Morgan Chu, Esq., Grace Chen, Samuel Kai Lu, Jane Shay Wald, Esq., Attorney, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Barbara A. Murphy, Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC, Washington, DC, for Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Mark S. Puzella, Esq., Attorney, Sheryl Garko, Esq., Richard David Hosp, Esq., Attorney, Fish & Richardson, PC, Boston, MA, Elizabeth Eilleene Brenckman, Attorney, Fish & Richardson, P.C., New York, NY, Thomas S. Fusco, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, for Intervenor Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Mark S. Puzella, Esq., Attorney, Sheryl Garko, Esq., Richard David Hosp, Esq., Attorney, Robert M. O'Connell, Jr., Fish & Richardson, PC, Boston, MA, Elizabeth Eilleene Brenckman, Attorney, Fish & Richardson, P.C., New York, NY, Thomas S. Fusco, Richard Alex Sterba, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, for Intervenor New Balance Athletics, Inc. Jeff E. Schwartz, Attorney, Austen Conrad Endersby, Esq., Attorney, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor HU Liquidation, LLC, for Intervenor HU Liquidation, LLC
ORDER
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. Accordingly:
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 registration 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?
Per Curiam.