Nike, Inc. v. ALREADY, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trademark cancellation provision of the Lanham Act “creates a remedy for trademark infringement rather than an independent basis for federal jurisdiction”
• holding that, notwithstanding the declaratory plaintiffs claim of an ongoing injurious effect, “potential investor concerns about infringement lawsuits, despite [a broad covenant not to sue,] fail to establish the sort of genuinely adverse legal interests” required under MedImmune
• holding that declaratory judgment claim was nonjusticiable because declaratory defendant, in covenant not to sue, “ ‘unconditionally’ and permanently renounced its right to claim, demand or ‘commence], eaus[e] or permit[] to be prosecuted any action in law or in equity’ ”
• explaining that, under Medlmmune, there must been a real and substantial adversity of legal interests
• stating that Section 1119 “creates a remedy for trademark infringement rather than an independent basis for federal jurisdiction”
• noting that “[t]he Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).