Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc. v. Lawn Managers, Inc.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 18-2658 · judgment May 20, 2020


Certiorari denied · November 9, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

  1. Whether in a trademark infringement case in which it is necessary for the federal court to construe state-court divorce orders governing the rights and obligations of the parties relevant to unclean hands and where there are ongoing parallel state-court proceedings involving enforcement of those same orders, the federal court may disregard the state-court constructions of the divorce orders and contradictorily construe such orders on the sole basis that the federal case is a “trademark infringement action in federal court.”

  2. Whether in the situation where the licensor of a mark purposefully allows the licensee to use the mark to deceive the public into thinking the licensee is the licensor and the licensor retains and exercises no control over the quality of services provided under the mark, the finding of mark abandonment compelled by the Lanham Act may be avoided solely on the basis of a prior relationship between the licensor and licensee, even where that relationship turns hostile before and during the license period.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Don V. Kelly
Evans & Dixon, LLC

For respondent
Susan Nell Rowe
Rowe Law Office, LLC

Case

Subject area
Economic Activity (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Order
Order list, November 9, 2020 · Certiorari denied

Proceedings

  1. Nov 09 2020
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 21 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
  3. Oct 15 2020
    Waiver of right of respondent Lawn Managers, Inc. to respond filed.
  4. Sep 28 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 2, 2020)