## Facts

- B & B Hardware, Inc. sold aerospace fasteners under the registered trademark SEALTIGHT.
- Hargis Industries, Inc. sold self-drilling construction screws under the mark SEALTITE and applied to register it with the PTO.
- B & B opposed registration before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), asserting likelihood of confusion with SEALTIGHT.
- The TTAB sustained the opposition, finding a likelihood of confusion and refusing registration to Hargis; Hargis did not seek judicial review.
- While TTAB proceedings were pending, B & B also sued Hargis for federal trademark infringement in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- In the infringement case, B & B argued the TTAB’s likelihood-of-confusion finding collaterally estopped Hargis from relitigating that issue; the district court rejected preclusion and excluded the TTAB decision.
- A jury returned a verdict for Hargis (no likelihood of confusion/no infringement), and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a TTAB decision finding a likelihood of confusion can have issue-preclusive effect in later federal trademark infringement litigation between the same parties.
2. Whether the likelihood-of-confusion issue decided in a registration proceeding is identical to the likelihood-of-confusion issue in an infringement action.
3. What limitation applies to preclusion when the TTAB assesses confusion based on the mark’s application/registration record rather than full marketplace usage.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that TTAB decisions can have issue-preclusive effect when the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are satisfied.
- Preclusion is appropriate only when the “usages” of the marks adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those presented in the infringement litigation.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule that TTAB decisions can never be preclusive and rejected the view that different multifactor articulations necessarily mean different issues.
- The Court left to the lower courts on remand whether preclusion applied on the specific record.

## Legal Principles

- Issue preclusion may apply to administrative adjudications when the agency acts in a judicial capacity, resolves disputed issues properly before it, and the parties had an adequate opportunity to litigate.
- The Lanham Act does not reflect a contrary congressional intent that bars issue preclusion from TTAB likelihood-of-confusion determinations.
- The statutory likelihood-of-confusion standard is the same in registration and infringement contexts, even if tribunals articulate or weight factors differently.
- Ordinary elements of issue preclusion must be met: identity of the issue, actual litigation, necessary resolution, a final and valid decision, and a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
- Because TTAB proceedings often focus on the application/registration descriptions rather than marketplace realities, preclusion applies only when the mark usages compared by the TTAB are materially the same as those at issue in court.

## Conclusion

The Court held that TTAB findings on likelihood of confusion may bind the parties in later infringement litigation under ordinary issue-preclusion rules, but only when the TTAB’s adjudicated mark usages match the usages relevant to the infringement dispute.


B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015)