Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

ences” were “of no legal significance”). 

A  fortiori,  if  the  TTAB  considers  a  different  mark  alto-
gether, issue preclusion would not apply.  Needless to say, 
moreover,  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. 

For a similar reason, the Eighth Circuit erred in holding
that  issue  preclusion  could  not  apply  here  because  the 
TTAB relied too heavily on “appearance and sound.”  App.
to  Pet.  for  Cert.  10a.  Undoubtedly  there  are  cases  in
which  the  TTAB  places  more  weight  on  certain  factors
than  it  should.  When  that  happens,  an  aggrieved  party 
should seek judicial review.  The fact that the TTAB may
have  erred,  however,  does  not  prevent  preclusion.    As 
Judge  Colloton  observed  in  dissent,  “ ‘issue  preclusion 
prevent[s]  relitigation  of  wrong  decisions  just  as  much  as 
right  ones.’ ”    716  F. 3d,  at  1029  (quoting  Clark  v.  Clark, 
984  F. 2d  272,  273  (CA8  1993));  see  also  Restatement 
(Second) of Judgments §28, Comment j, at 284 (explaining
that  “refusal  to  give  the  first  judgment  preclusive  effect
should  not  . . .  be  based  simply  on  a  conclusion  that  [it]
was patently erroneous”). 

B 
Hargis  also  argues  that  registration  is  categorically
incompatible with issue preclusion because the TTAB uses
procedures  that  differ  from  those  used  by  district  courts.
Granted, “[r]edetermination of issues is warranted if there
is reason to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness of 
procedures  followed  in  prior  litigation.”    Montana,  440 
U. S.,  at  164,  n. 11;  see  also  Parklane  Hosiery,  439  U. S., 
at  331,  and  n. 15  (similar).    But  again,  this  only  suggests
that  sometimes  issue  preclusion  might  be  inappropriate, 
not that it always is.

No  one  disputes  that  the  TTAB  and  district  courts  use
different procedures.  Most notably, district courts feature