Converse, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 D YK , O’M ALLEY, and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R

-- 1 of 2 --

CONVERSE, INC. v. ITC 2
This case, having been submitted after oral argument on
February 8, 2018,
IT IS O RDERED 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

-- 2 of 2 --