B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries: Ruling Fed. Courts Must Give Due Deference To TTAB Decisions
Due Deference Requirement
The Supreme Court issued its first major trademark decision in more than a decade on Tuesday in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, ruling that federal courts must defer to previously issued Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rulings when the issues that the two consider are identical.
The Court reached the decision by a 7-2 majority, overturning a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that federal courts owed the TTAB no such deference. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority and Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote in dissent.
Ruling Ends Long Battle of B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries
The decision brought to a close a nearly two-decade legal battle between two nuts-and-bolts manufacturers: B&B, which primarily works within the aerospace industry, and Hargis, which primarily manufactures bolts for sheet metal buildings. In 1996, Hargis came to B&B’s attention when it attempted to register the trademark “Sealtite.” B&B held a similar mark under “Sealtight,” which it had registered with the Patent and Trademark Office in 1993. B&B sued Hargis for trademark infringement, but a jury ruled against B&B in 2000, finding that its mark was too descriptive and had not acquired sufficient secondary meaning for trademark protection.
Hargis then attempted to cancel B&B’s mark via the TTAB, but in its decision, the Board neither cancelled B&B’s mark nor registered Hargis’s mark, finding that Hargis’s mark was too similar to B&B’s—in other words, a likelihood of confusion existed. Finally, B&B again sued Hargis for trademark infringement, and a jury once again ruled against B&B, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion, contrary to the Board’s finding.
During oral arguments before the Court, Hargis emphasized that the TTAB proceedings were too summary to preclude a full subsequent inquiry in federal court. It also pointed out that while a TTAB proceeding focuses narrowly on whether confusion exists between two marks’ resemblance, a federal court proceeding focuses more broadly on whether consumer confusion exists when two marks are used in commerce.
Thomas and Scalia Dissented on Due Deference Ruling
Ultimately, none of the justices seemed won over by the main thrusts of Hargis’s argument. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented on the grounds that federal law does not facially justify giving TTAB decisions “preclusive effect in trademark cases.”
Now, TTAB decisions probably take on an even greater importance. When the board has its say, the parties involved likely cannot litigate that particular issue any further.
Sources: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/argument-preview-justices-will-use-rare-look-at-trademark-law-to-consider-broad-and-narrow-conceptions-of-trademarks/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/argument-analysis-justices-unsettled-in-trademark-preclusion-dispute/ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
For more information on this topic, please visit our Trademark Litigation service page.
Klemchuk LLP is an Intellectual Property (IP), Technology, Internet, and Business law firm. The firm offers comprehensive legal services including litigation and enforcement of all forms of IP as well as registration and licensing of patents, trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights. The firm also provides a wide range of technology, Internet, e-commerce, and business services including business planning, formation, and financing, mergers and acquisitions, business litigation, data privacy, and domain name dispute resolution.
Klemchuk LLP hosts Culture Counts, a blog devoted to the discussion of law firm culture and corporate core values with frequent topics about positive work environment, conscious capitalism, entrepreneurial management, positive workplace culture, workplace productivity, and corporate core values.