<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Supreme-Court on Doctrine &amp; Data</title>
    <link>https://reichert.law/blog/tags/supreme-court/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Supreme-Court on Doctrine &amp; Data</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://reichert.law/blog/tags/supreme-court/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>RiseandShine v. PepsiCo: The Supreme Court Takes Up Confusion</title>
      <link>https://reichert.law/blog/posts/riseandshine-v-pepsico-missing-jury/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://reichert.law/blog/posts/riseandshine-v-pepsico-missing-jury/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;On June 29, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in &lt;em&gt;RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo&lt;/em&gt;, No. 24-1016. If you practice trademark law, this is the case you will be hearing about for the next year, and it deserves the attention. For the first time, the Court has agreed to look inside the likelihood-of-confusion test itself. Every prior trip to the Court has circled the test: protectability, tacking, preclusion, remedies, registration, expressive-use filters. This one asks how the test is operated, factor by factor, and by whom.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
