Recognizing that trademark users make modifications to their marks over time, courts have held that a party may clothe a new mark with the priority position of an older, legally equivalent mark when the two marks create the same, continuing commercial impression from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser or consumer.  This doctrine is called “tacking,” and appellate courts have split as to whether a party’s entitlement to trademark tacking is an issue of fact or law.  In Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015) (No. 13-1211), the Supreme Court resolved that split, holding that the question of whether tacking is warranted is a fact-intensive one that must be decided by a jury.  The Court rejected the argument that leaving tacking determinations to judges would create consistent rules that will guide future tacking disputes and create the predictability required for a functioning trademark system.  The Court held that it has long been recognized across a variety of contexts, including in tort cases and contract disputes, that when the relevant question is how an ordinary person would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decision-maker which ought to provide the answer.