United States: TTAB Rulings Held Preclusive in Federal Court (April 16, 2015)

Last Updated: April 18 2015
Article by Martin L. Saad, Briana C. Rizzo and Jeremy M. Klass

On March 24, 2015, the United States Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, 13-352 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2015), holding that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) findings of mark similarity can be preclusive in later federal proceedings as long as "the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met." Slip op. at 2. This ruling stands in direct opposition to the majority of recent federal precedent, and will dramatically increase the import of TTAB rulings in the coming years. In other words, the TTAB just got a bit of a promotion.

Case Background

This case initially arose when Hargis Industries applied to register the trademark "SEALTITE" in the construction industry in 1996. B&B Hardware opposed this application and simultaneously filed a Lanham Act trademark infringement lawsuit, asserting that B&B had previously registered the trademark "SEALTIGHT" in 1993 for its fastener product in the aerospace industry. While B&B's federal suit was pending the TTAB determined that Hargis's proposed mark was confusingly similar to B&B's mark and denied Hargis's trademark application. As a result, B&B argued in its district court proceeding that the TTAB's finding of mark similarity was entitled to preclusive effect in the court. Unpersuaded, the district court refused to admit the TTAB's holding into evidence, stating that no deference should be accorded to the findings of a non-Article III court. The jury then held in favor of Hargis. Later, in upholding this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that because the TTAB uses a slightly different "likelihood of confusion" standard, each court inevitably decides different factual questions and, thus, that TTAB's findings could never preclude federal courts.

Supreme Court Holding

The Supreme Court summarily reversed these holdings, finding 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 a district court, issue preclusion should apply." Slip op. at 2. In fact, these "ordinary elements of issue preclusion" are present "[w]hen [the same] issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment,..." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS §27 (emphasis added). As such, while the Court's ruling does give the TTAB preclusive power regardless of its procedural variations from federal court, it only does so where, among other things, the issues and usages analyzed in each proceeding are "materially the same."

Specifically, the Court began its analysis by noting, in contrast with the district court's analysis, that non-Article III bodies have long been found to create preclusive rulings. Indeed, the Court cited its decision in Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991), in which it held that where agencies are authorized by Congress to settle disputes, "courts may take it as a given that Congress has legislated with the expectation that [issue preclusion] will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident." Slip op. at 9 (quoting Astoria, 501 U.S. at 108). As agencies are provided this power, and as the Lanham Act contains no such "statutory purpose to the contrary," the Court concluded that there is no reason why the TTAB should not be afforded a similar level of deference. It should be noted, however, that Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented on the use of this case, asserting that the Astoria presumption cannot be applied to the Lanham Act, as the Act both predates Astoria and does not otherwise indicate congressional intent that agency decisions carry preclusive weight.

After establishing the Board's ability to issue preclusive rulings, the Court moved on to distinguish the asserted legal, procedural, and evidentiary differences between TTAB and federal court proceedings from those that might actually prevent issue preclusion. In doing so, the Court first rejected Hargis's argument that the marginally different legal standard applied to TTAB disputes justifies a lack of issue preclusion in federal court. In contrast, the Court found that each court uses "essentially the same" likelihood of confusion test, and that any variations between the tests are merely textual. Slip op. at 15-18. Further, the Court rejected Hargis's argument that preclusion is inappropriate because the TTAB analyzes marks as used in their registration or applications, whereas federal courts look to their actual marketplace use. Instead, the Court found that as long as the issue to be analyzed is "materially the same," or in other words, involves the same mark used in the same context, preclusion is appropriate. Finally, the specific procedures and "lower stakes" that characterize the TTAB similarly did not prevent preclusion, as the Court found no reason to doubt the quality and fairness of the Board's proceedings and had no reason to believe that all TTAB proceedings would involve lower stakes than would federal court.

The Court was, however, careful to limit the above ruling by noting that the issue preclusion standard referenced in this holding is a narrow one, and that a "great many" cases would likely not satisfy it. In other words, while TTAB rulings may indeed have preclusive effect in this instance, issue similarity is far from guaranteed under the Court's strict issue preclusion standard. Specifically on this point, the Court cautioned that "if the TTAB has not decided the same issue as that before the district court, there is no reason why any deference would be warranted." Slip op. at 19 (emphasis added). It is worth noting, however, that the Court did not further explain what issues qualify as "the same" or "materially the same," and as such, this vague definition may well become a subject of contention in the coming years. The Court further narrowed its holding by explaining that if a "compelling showing of unfairness" at the TTAB is made, or if the proceeding is not "actually litigated," the Board's holding cannot be preclusive in later proceedings. Accordingly, parties showing that important evidence was excluded in the TTAB, that critical oral testimony was not allowed, or that the matter was never "actually litigated" because of a default judgment may be able to circumvent an otherwise preclusive TTAB holding.

Practical Impacts of B&B Hardware

The newfound significance this ruling attaches to TTAB rulings will likely have long-ranging effects on trademark professionals in transactional and litigation practices alike, and may generally shape decision-making in quasi-judicial proceedings. However, in understanding this holding it is important that parties also remain cognizant of the limitations inherent in its construction.

First, this holding will have broad implications for parties whose applications or registrations are challenged at the TTAB. Indeed, parties to TTAB proceedings should factor B&B Hardware into their TTAB litigation and settlement strategy, and not treat TTAB decisions as merely affecting the state of the USPTO Register.

Second, this ruling may undercut the TTAB's reputation as a streamlined and cost-effective trademark dispute venue. Whereas parties could previously resolve trademark disputes quickly and inexpensively through the TTAB, parties who receive an unfavorable TTAB ruling after B&B Hardware will essentially be required to spend additional time and money to appeal the decision, as they may otherwise risk it becoming a preclusive "final judgment" on the issue. Indeed, the Court warns litigants of this exact point, stating that litigants should seek immediate review of a TTAB decision they believe to be in error, as "[t]he fact that the TTAB may have erred . . . does not prevent preclusion." Slip op. at 19. While this added cost may well make some litigants less eager to bring TTAB proceedings in the future, it may also give litigants with successful claims "more bang for their buck" by enabling them to avoid relitigating a key issue in district court.

Aside from its effects in the trademark world, it is important to note that B&B Hardware's ruling may signal a sea change in how courts deal with quasi-judicial bodies more generally. Significantly, patent entities like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be similarly found to create preclusive holdings through inter partes and post grant review proceedings. Further, the fact that issue preclusion lies for singular issues of fact or law suggests that this ruling could be particularly important for rulings on claim construction, level of skill in the art, and prior art determinations.

However, even with the aforementioned implications it is important not to overstate the applicability of this ruling. As the Court was careful to narrow its holding only to instances where "ordinary elements of preclusion" are met, litigants should be cognizant that only a narrow set of issues will actually be precluded in federal court, and thus should think carefully about how parties present issues in TTAB proceedings. For instance, the Court explicitly notes that where "the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties' marks, the TTAB's decision should 'have no later preclusive effect in a suit where actual usage in the marketplace is the paramount issue.'" Slip op. at 18 (quoting 6 McCarthy §32:101, at 32–246). Additionally, it is important to note that the factual background of this case sets it apart from most federal court trademark proceedings, and as such may further narrow the application of this holding. Specifically, litigants should be aware of how this holding may apply to federal district court cases filed non-simultaneously with TTAB proceedings, or even filed after a TTAB holding has been appealed.

In sum, the ruling in B&B Hardware represents a clear departure from previous law in the weight it bestows on final TTAB judgments, and will undoubtedly affect both the litigation and transactional strategies of parties preserving trademark, patent, or other legal rights through quasi-judicial decision-making bodies. These qualities, along with this ruling's carefully delineated limitations and novel factual background, lead the authors to conclude that B&B Hardware will generate no shortage of interesting legal questions in the coming years.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.