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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions