Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

decision below on this ground. 

C 
Hargis also contends that the stakes for registration are
so much lower than for infringement that issue preclusion
should  never  apply  to  TTAB  decisions.    Issue  preclusion 
may  be  inapt  if  “the  amount  in  controversy  in  the  first
action  [was]  so  small  in  relation  to  the  amount  in  contro-
versy  in  the  second  that  preclusion  would  be  plainly  un-
fair.”  Restatement  (Second)  of  Judgments  §28,  Comment 
j,  at  283–284.    After  all,  “[f]ew  . . .  litigants  would  spend 
$50,000  to  defend  a  $5,000  claim.”  Wright  &  Miller 
§4423, at 612.  Hargis is wrong, however, that this exception
to  issue  preclusion  applies  to  every  registration.    To 
the  contrary:    When  registration  is  opposed,  there  is 
good  reason  to  think  that  both  sides  will  take  the  matter 
seriously.

The  benefits  of  registration  are  substantial.  Registra-
tion  is  “prima  facie  evidence  of  the  validity  of  the  regis-
tered mark,” 15 U. S. C. §1057(b), and is a precondition for 
a mark to become “incontestable,” §1065.  Incontestability 
is  a  powerful  protection.  See,  e.g.,  Park  ’N  Fly,  Inc.  v. 
Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985) (holding 
that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely
descriptive);  see  also  id.,  at  193  (explaining  that  “Con-
gress  determined  that  . . .  ‘trademarks  should  receive 
nationally the greatest protection that can be given them’ ” 
and  that  “[a]mong  the  new  protections  created  by  the
Lanham  Act  were  the  statutory  provisions  that  allow  a
federally  registered  mark  to  become  incontestable”  (quot-
ing S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1946))). 

The  importance  of  registration  is  undoubtedly  why
Congress provided for de novo review of TTAB decisions in 
district  court.    It  is  incredible  to  think  that  a  district 
court’s  adjudication  of  particular  usages  would  not  have
preclusive  effect  in  another  district  court.  Why  would