⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Grin Natural USA Limited — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026)

No. 26-1079 Argued September 15, 2026 Published October 4, 2026

The Fourth Circuit hears a dispute over who first acquired United States trademark rights to Grin, a name used on toothpaste, toothbrushes and other oral-care products. Sacks Holdings sued the Grin Natural companies for trademark infringement, and Grin claimed that it had the earlier rights. Before Sacks filed its trademark application on August 1, 2017, Grin Natural sent products to American customers on two occasions through its New Zealand website. The district court ruled for Sacks on trademark priority through summary judgment, deciding that issue without a trial. Grin now challenges that ruling in this appeal. Sacks used an intent-to-use application, a way to apply before beginning commercial use of a mark. The central question is whether Grin's two earlier sales already established protected use, and whether later sales can help show that the early use was deliberate and continuous. Gayle Elings will ask the court to reverse the ruling that Sacks has priority.

Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Grin Natural USA Limited (No. 26-1079) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (court original):https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1079-20260915.mp3
Argument date, case and counsel — Fourth Circuit listing:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files
Case background and recorded priority ruling — district court document 209, May 9, 2025 (GovInfo court PDF):https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_23-cv-01058/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_23-cv-01058-3.pdf
Independent case background — Northern District of California document 16, November 7, 2024 (GovInfo court PDF):https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-mc-80197/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-mc-80197-0.pdf
Intent-to-use applications — 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (statutory text, Cornell LII):https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1051
Filing priority — 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (statutory text, Cornell LII):https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1057
Use in commerce — 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (statutory text, Cornell LII):https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127
Intent-to-use applications and genuine commercial use — USPTO guidance:https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/intent-use-itu-applications
Constructive-use priority — USPTO Trademark Manual § 201.02:https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?href=TMEP-200d1e1.html&version=current
Deliberate and continuous use — Larsen v. Terk, Fourth Circuit, 1998 (official opinion):https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/971032.P.pdf
Common-law trademark priority — Emergency One, Fourth Circuit, 2003 (official opinion):https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/021483.p.pdf

0:00
0:00