Petition for Certiorari Filed Regarding Preclusive Effect of Likelihood of Confusion Findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General to Submit Views

by Proskauer Rose LLP

In advising clients and making strategic decisions about whether to bring or defend inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), trademark practitioners need to consider carefully whether they are content having their clients' fates decided by the TTAB versus the courts. Traditionally, courts have not afforded TTAB decisions on likelihood of confusion more than "some weight" and certainly not preclusive effect, but in recent years there has been a growing amount of uncertainty. Well, the Supreme Court is one step closer to considering this issue and may decide whether likelihood of confusion determinations by the TTAB are entitled to preclusive effect in federal court and, if not, what level of deference such determinations should be accorded.

These issues were raised in a petition for certiorari filed by B&B Hardware, Inc. ("B&B"), a manufacturer of sealing fasteners sold under the registered mark SEALTIGHT. The respondent, Hargis Industries, Inc. ("Hargis"), also manufacturers sealing fasteners and does so under the name SEALTITE. In 2007, the TTAB denied Hargis's attempt to register its SEALTITE mark on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion with B&B's SEALTIGHT mark. Based on the TTAB's determination, B&B sought summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion in a concurrent trademark infringement and unfair competition action that B&B had commenced against Hargis in federal district court.

B&B's argument was unsuccessful in both the district court and the Eighth Circuit.[1] While the district court declined to give the TTAB's decision preclusive effect on the grounds that the TTAB is not an Article III court, the Eighth Circuit sidestepped that issue, concluding that the TTAB's determination was not entitled to preclusive effect because the likelihood of confusion issues decided by the TTAB were not the same as those raised in the action before the district court. More specifically, the Eighth Circuit held that the TTAB did not give sufficient weight to "marketplace context," i.e. whether or not the products bearing the two marks are sold to the same customers – a factor that the Eighth Circuit held was critical in trademark infringement actions. The Eighth Circuit also noted that the burden of persuasion differed between the two proceedings – Hargis's failure to overcome B&B's challenge to its mark before the TTAB did not establish that B&B could meets its burden of persuasion for trademark infringement purposes.

Both the district court and the Eighth Circuit further held that B&B had not provided relevant authority for the proposition that a district court is obligated to defer to the TTAB's factual findings.

In support of its petition for certiorari, B&B makes four arguments: (1) that the Eighth Circuit's decision is inconsistent with the approach of the TTAB and Federal Circuit whereby district court determinations of likelihood of confusion are given preclusive effect; (2) that certiorari is necessary to resolve a circuit split, with the Second Circuit sometimes allowing for preclusion, the Seventh and Third Circuits always allowing for preclusion, and the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits not allowing for preclusion but according deference to the TTAB's determinations; (3) that the Eighth Circuit misapplied the law of preclusion by elevating its own approach over that of the TTAB; and (4) that potential alternative bases for sustaining the Eighth Circuit's judgment (i.e., differences in the burden of persuasion between the TTAB proceeding and the trademark infringement action in federal court and the TTAB's status as an administrative tribunal and not an Article III court) are meritless.

Hargis opposes B&B's petition arguing: (1) that there is nothing inconsistent about the TTAB and Federal Circuit giving preclusive effect to likelihood of confusion determinations by district courts, but district courts not giving preclusive effect to TTAB decisions because (a) one tribunal is an administrative agency whereas the other is an Article III court; (b) the likelihood of confusion issues addressed by these respective tribunals are not the same; and (c) these tribunals preside over different types of proceedings; (2) that the cases cited by B&B do not demonstrate a circuit split on the question of whether TTAB determinations are entitled to preclusive effect; (3) that the Eighth Circuit's decision was correct on the merits; and (4) that because of the alternative bases for affirming the Eighth Circuit's judgment, this case is a poor vehicle to address the issue of preclusion.

B&B's petition went to conference on January 10, 2014, and on January 13, 2014 the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to submit a brief expressing the views of the United States. Because Justices must vote to extend such an invitation to the Solicitor General and because available data shows that out of the cases in which the Supreme Court calls for the views of the Solicitor General a notable number are granted review, the Supreme Court's invitation may indicate a higher likelihood that B&B's petition will be granted.[2]

Proskauer's False Advertising & Trademark attorneys will continue to monitor this important case and will continue to update our clients. The case is B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352. Stay tuned.

[1] See B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (E.D. Ark. 2010); B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013).

[2] See David C. Thompson and Melanie F. Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and The Call For The Views of The Solicitor General, 16 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 237, 27-75 (2009).


Written by:

Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.