Already, LLC, dba Yums, Petitioner v. Nike, Inc.
The court held that an unconditional and irrevocable commitment not to enforce a trademark against the defendant in an action moots that action over the defendant's objection that the trademark is invalid.
568 U.S. 85 · No. 11-982 · 2012 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 9, 2013 · argued Nov 7, 2012
Economic activity · Patents and copyrights: trademark
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Already, LLC, dba Yums, Petitioner lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Already, LLC, dba Yums, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an unconditional and irrevocable commitment not to enforce a trademark against the defendant in an action moots that action over the defendant's objection that the trademark is invalid.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2012 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Already, LLC, dba Yums, PetitionerManufacturer
- Respondent
- Nike, Inc.Manufacturer
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 9, 2013DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Already, LLC, dba Yums, Petitioner lost.
- Nov 7, 2012ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
20 other argued cases since 1946 on patents and copyrights: trademark, newest first.
- Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers145 S. Ct. 681Feb 26, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 681Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Int'l600 U.S. 412Jun 29, 2023 · 600 U.S. 412Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Jack Daniels Properties v. Vip Products LLC599 U.S. 140Jun 8, 2023 · 599 U.S. 140Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.140 S. Ct. 2298Jun 30, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2298Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc.140 S. Ct. 1589May 14, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1589Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc.140 S. Ct. 1492Apr 23, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1492Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.575 U.S. 138Mar 24, 2015 · 575 U.S. 138Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank574 U.S. 418Jan 21, 2015 · 574 U.S. 418Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., et al.543 U.S. 111Dec 8, 2004 · 543 U.S. 111Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation et al.539 U.S. 23Jun 2, 2003 · 539 U.S. 23Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Victor Moseley and Cathy Moseley, dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al.537 U.S. 418Mar 4, 2003 · 537 U.S. 418Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.529 U.S. 205Mar 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 205Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Qualitex Company v. Jacobson Products Company, Inc.514 U.S. 159Mar 28, 1995 · 514 U.S. 159Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.505 U.S. 763Jun 26, 1992 · 505 U.S. 763Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., et al.486 U.S. 281May 31, 1988 · 486 U.S. 281Economic activity5–45–4 band
- K Mart Corporation v. Cartier, Inc., et al.485 U.S. 176Mar 7, 1988 · 485 U.S. 176Economic activity5–36–3 band
- Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.469 U.S. 189Jan 8, 1985 · 469 U.S. 189Economic activity8–18–1 band
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.456 U.S. 844Jun 1, 1982 · 456 U.S. 844Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Steele et al. v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc.344 U.S. 280Dec 22, 1952 · 344 U.S. 280Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders et al., Doing Business As Perfect Recondition Spark Plug Co.331 U.S. 125Apr 28, 1947 · 331 U.S. 125Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.