Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907

Hana Financial (California corp.) began using the "Hana Financial" mark in U.S. commerce in 1995 and registered a pyramid-logo mark in 1996.
Hana Bank (Korean bank) used "Hana" marks and related trade names in Korea and began advertising services to U.S. Korean expatriates in the 1990s; it opened U.S. banking operations in 2002.
In 2007 Hana Financial sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement; Hana Bank asserted tacking to claim priority based on earlier use of related "Hana" marks.
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Hana Bank and remanded for trial on disputed priority facts; the infringement claim was tried to a jury.
The district court, using a jury instruction substantially proposed by Hana Financial defining tacking as when two marks are "legal equivalents" creating the same continuing commercial impression, submitted tacking to the jury; the jury found for Hana Bank.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding tacking is a highly fact-sensitive inquiry for the jury; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether tacking (clothing a later mark with an earlier mark’s priority) is a question of law for a judge or a question of fact for a jury	Tacking applies a legal standard ("legal equivalents") and raises precedent-creating issues that should be decided by judges	Tacking requires a consumer-perspective, fact-intensive inquiry about commercial impression, so it should be decided by a jury	When a jury trial is requested and no summary judgment or JMOL is appropriate, tacking is a question for the jury

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (Ninth Circuit decision below holding tacking is jury question)
Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp., 926 F.2d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (articulated "legal equivalents" / same commercial impression test for tacking)
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (commercial impression must be viewed through consumers’ eyes)
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussed tacking and consumer confusion principles)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (jury competence to apply legal standards to facts; mixed questions of law and fact)
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438 (1976) (reasonable person/consumer perspective in assessing impressions)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (distinguishing judge-decided issues of interpretation from fact-based inquiries)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (juror ability to ascertain community standards and impressions)