Question 1:
In trademark disputes, the alleged infringing party often seeks declarations that the mark of the opposing party (i) is not infringed and (ii) is invalid. The question then arises whether a finding of non infringement moots the claim for invalidity. The Ninth Circuit here answered that question yes, holding that once Petitioner San Diego County Credit Union obtained a declaration of non-infringement it lost any personal stake it had in invalidating the mark it allegedly infringed. Th e Ninth Circuit's decisi on creates a clear circuit split, as it directly conflicts with a well-established line of authority from the Federal Circuit. In the directly analogous patent context, the Federal Circuit has interpreted this Court's decision in Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (1993) to hold that a finding of non-infringement by itself does not moot a request for a declaratory judgment of invalidity. Therefore, t he question presented is:
Whether a district court's finding that a trademark has not been infringed by itself moots any request for a declaration that the trademark is invalid unless the party seeking the declaration presents additional evidence demonstrating that the invalidity claim is not moot.

Question 2:
When a trademark dispu te involves marks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, one party may seek to cancel the other party's mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1119 explicitly provides district courts authority to order cancellation "[i]n any action involving a registered mark . . . ." The question presented is:
Where jurisdiction for a cancellation counterclaim has been established under 15 U.S.C. § 1119, whether a court's disposal of the non-infringement claims involving the registered mark on summary judgment divests the court of jurisdiction to decide the cancellation counterclaim (i) pending before the court in the same summary judgment motion or (ii) at trial.

Whether a finding of non-infringement moots a claim for trademark invalidity