Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank

Last updated

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided January 21, 2015
Full case nameHana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
Citations574 U.S. 418 ( more )
Holding
Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. 418(2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Hana Financial, Inc. and Hana Bank both provided financial services to individuals in the United States. When Hana Financial sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement, Hana Bank invoked in defense the tacking doctrine, under which courts have provided that a trademark user may make certain modifications to its mark over time while, in limited circumstances, retaining its priority position. Hana Financial's claim was tried before a jury, and the federal District Court adopted in substantial part the jury instruction on tacking proposed by Hana Financial. The jury returned a verdict in Hana Bank's favor. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the tacking inquiry was an exceptionally limited and highly fact-sensitive matter reserved for juries, not judges. [1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on January 21, 2015. [1]

Later developments

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. 418 (2015).
  2. Mann, Ronald (January 21, 2015). "Opinion analysis: Justices, yet again, remind courts of appeals of importance of juries in IP cases". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 25, 2025.

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .