Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 
DBA SEALTITE BUILDING FASTENERS ET AL., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–352.  Argued December 2, 2014—Decided March 24, 2015 

Respondent Hargis Industries, Inc. (Hargis), tried to register its trade-
mark  for  SEALTITE  with  the  United  States  Patent  and  Trademark 
Office pursuant to the Lanham Act.  Petitioner, B&B Hardware, Inc. 
(B&B),  however,  opposed  registration,  claiming  that  SEALTITE  is
too  similar  to  B&B’s  own  SEALTIGHT  trademark.    The  Trademark 
Trial  and  Appeal  Board  (TTAB)  concluded  that  SEALTITE  should 
not  be  registered  because  of  the  likelihood  of  confusion.    Hargis  did
not seek judicial review of that decision.

Later,  in  an  infringement  suit  before  the  District  Court,  B&B  ar-
gued that Hargis was precluded from contesting the likelihood of con-
fusion because of the TTAB’s decision.  The District Court disagreed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that preclusion was unwarrant-
ed because the TTAB and the court used different factors to evaluate 
likelihood  of  confusion,  the  TTAB  placed  too  much  emphasis  on  the
appearance and sound of the two marks, and Hargis bore the burden
of persuasion before the TTAB while B&B bore it before the District
Court. 

Held: So  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.
Pp. 8–22.

(a) An  agency  decision  can  ground  issue  preclusion.    The  Court’s 
cases  establish  that  when  Congress  authorizes  agencies  to  resolve
disputes,  “courts  may  take  it  as  given  that  Congress  has  legislated
with the expectation that [issue preclusion] will apply except when a 
statutory  purpose  to  the  contrary  is  evident.”  Astoria  Fed.  Sav.  & 
Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108.  Constitutional avoidance