B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., Potential Issue Preclusion on Likelihood of Confusion Rulings

Mar 26, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The TTAB and federal courts both determine whether consumers are likely to be confused by similar marks, but they do so for different purposes. The TTAB determines whether to issue a federal trademark registration for a mark, while federal courts decide whether there is infringement of a mark. In B&B Hardware, the Supreme Court considered whether an earlier TTAB ruling on likelihood of confusion can preclude later litigation on the same issue in federal court.

In a 7­2 opinion, the Supreme 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 a district court, issue preclusion should apply.” Slip. op. at 22. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito explained that “likelihood of confusion for purposes of registration is the same standard as likelihood of confusion for purposes of infringement.” Id. at 16.  The Court noted, however, that for “a great many registration decisions issue preclusion

obviously will not apply because the ordinary elements [of preclusion] will not be met.” Id. at 14. For example, “[i]f the TTAB does not consider the market­place usage of the parties’ marks, the TTAB’s [registration] decision should have no later preclusive effect in a suit where actual usage in the marketplace is the paramount issue.” Id. at 18 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc. et al., Case No. 13­352, U.S. Supreme Court (March 24, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.