In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court held on March 24, 2015, that issue preclusion may apply to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions. The case, B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., sought to determine:
As discussed in an earlier Snippets article, this case involved both an opposition before the TTAB and an infringement action in federal court. In the TTAB proceeding, the TTAB sustained B&B’s opposition and denied Hargis’s registration of the SEALTITE mark, concluding that the marks were “substantially identical” and “used on closely related products,” thus, likely to cause confusion. However, in the infringement action, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit refused to accord a preclusive effect to the TTAB’s decision on likelihood of confusion.
The Supreme Court held that an agency decision, such as that of the TTAB, may be grounds for issue preclusion. As an initial matter, the Court found nothing in the Lanham Act that would forbid issue preclusion. The Court also noted that:
What matters here is that registration is not a prerequisite to an infringement action. Rather, it is a separate proceeding to decide separate rights. Neither is issue preclusion a one-way street. When a district court, as part of its judgment, decides an issue that overlaps with part of the TTAB’s analysis, the TTAB gives preclusive effect to the court’s judgment.
In addition, the Court also rejected arguments that issue preclusion should never be available because the TTAB applies different factors in accessing likelihood of confusion and TTAB proceedings are procedurally different than court proceedings. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the stakes are lower in TTAB proceedings than in court actions, noting the benefits of registration.
Ultimately, the Court held that “[s]o long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.”
In view of this decision, trademark practitioners should advise clients to treat TTAB proceedings with the same seriousness as federal court proceedings.
 B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., No. 13-352, 2015 WL 1291915, at *1 (Mar. 24, 2015).
 Petition for Writ of Certiorai at i, B&B Hardware (No. 13-352).
 Sydney R. Kokjohn, Trademark Cases Pending Before the U.S. Supreme Court, Snippets, Fall 2014, at 12, 12-13, available at https://live-mbhb-new-wordpress.pantheonsite.io/snippets/.
 B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Sealtite Building Fasteners, 2007 WL 2698310, at *12 (Aug. 28, 2007).
 See B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020, 1026 (8th Cir. 2013); B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1217 (E.D. Ark. 2010).
 B&B Hardware, 2015 WL 1291915, at *1.
 Id. at *8.
 Id. at *9.
 Id. at *10-13.
 Id. at *13.
© 2015 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
snippets is a trademark of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. All rights reserved. The information contained in this newsletter reflects the understanding and opinions of the author(s) and is provided to you for informational purposes only. It is not intended to and does not represent legal advice. MBHB LLP does not intend to create an attorney–client relationship by providing this information to you. The information in this publication is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your particular state. snippets may be considered attorney advertising in some states.