Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Larry Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 19-7105 · judgment July 30, 2021
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
-
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit err by failing to apply the “apprecia ble number of consumers” standard to the “likelihood of confusion” test for a claim brought under the Lanham Act and how this bad and conflicting precedent negatively impacts trademark law in general?
-
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit err by failing to find truth to be an absolute defense to a claim brought under a non-dis paragement provision of a severance agreement and how this bad and conflicting precedent negatively im pacts business law in general?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Larry Klayman
For respondent
Richard W. Driscoll
Driscoll & Seltzer, PC
Proceedings
- Aug 01 2022Rehearing DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- Jul 07 2022DISTRIBUTED.
- Jun 09 2022Petition for Rehearing filed.
- May 16 2022Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- Apr 20 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
- Apr 13 2022Waiver of right of respondent Judicail Watch, Inc., et al. to respond filed.
- Jan 07 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 18, 2022)
- Dec 15 2021Application (21A225) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 7, 2022. No further extensions of time shall be granted. See this Court's Rule 30.
- Dec 10 2021Application (21A225) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 14, 2021 to February 12, 2022, submitted to The Chief Justice.