Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

the  registered  mark”  but  “shall  not  preclude  another
person  from  proving  any  legal  or  equitable  defense  or 
defect”).  Giving preclusive effect to the TTAB’s decision on
likelihood  of  confusion  would  be  an  end-run  around  the 
statutory  limitation  on  its  authority,  as  all  parties  agree 
that likelihood of confusion is the central issue in a subse-
quent infringement suit.

A second indication that Congress did not intend admin-
istrative preclusion to apply is the Lanham Act’s provision
for  judicial  review.  After  the  TTAB  issues  a  registration 
decision,  a  party  “who  is  dissatisfied  with  the  decision”
may  either  appeal  to  the  Federal  Circuit  or  file  a  civil 
action  in  district  court  seeking  review.    §§1071(a)(1), 
(b)(1).5  And it is undisputed that a civil action in district 
court  would  entail  de novo  review  of  the  TTAB’s  decision. 
Ante, at 5.  Although under ordinary preclusion principles
“the failure to pursue an appeal does not undermine issue 
preclusion,” ante, at 13, the availability of de novo judicial
review  of  an  administrative  decision  does.  That  is  true 
both because the judicial review afforded by the Act marks
the  first  opportunity  for  consideration  of  the  issue  by  an
Article  III  court  and  because  Congress  has  deviated  from 
the  usual  practice  of  affording  deference  to  the  factfind-
ings  of  an  initial  tribunal  in  affording  de novo  review  of 
the TTAB’s decisions. 

The decision to provide this de novo review is even more 
striking in light of the historical background of the choice: 
Congress passed the Lanham Act the same year it passed 
the  Administrative  Procedure  Act,  following  a  lengthy
period of disagreement in the courts about what deference
administrative findings of fact were entitled to receive on 
direct review.  The issue had been the subject of debate for 
over  50  years,  with  varying  results.    See  generally  2  J. 

—————— 

5 The  original  1946  Lanham  Act  provided  for  appeal  to  the  Court  of

Customs and Patent Appeals.  See §21, 60 Stat. 435.