Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

receive preclusive effect, even in those cases in which the
ordinary  elements  of  issue  preclusion  are  met.    Astoria, 
supra,  at  108.    We  conclude  that  nothing  in  the  Lanham
Act bars the application of issue preclusion in such cases. 

The  Lanham  Act’s  text  certainly  does  not  forbid  issue
preclusion.  Nor  does  the  Act’s  structure.    Granted,  one 
can seek judicial review of a TTAB registration decision in 
a de novo district court action, and some courts have con-
cluded from this that Congress does not want unreviewed 
TTAB  decisions  to  ground  issue  preclusion.    See,  e.g., 
American  Heritage  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Heritage  Life  Ins.  Co., 
494  F.  2d  3,  9–10  (CA5  1974).  But  that  conclusion  does 
not follow.  Ordinary preclusion law teaches that if a party 
to  a  court  proceeding  does  not  challenge  an  adverse  deci-
sion,  that  decision  can  have  preclusive  effect  in  other 
cases,  even  if  it  would  have  been  reviewed  de  novo.  See 
Restatement  (Second)  of  Judgments  §28,  Comment  a  and 
Illustration  1  (explaining  that  the  failure  to  pursue  an
appeal does not undermine issue preclusion and including 
an  example  of  an  apparently  unappealed  district  court’s
dismissal  for  failure  to  state  a  claim);  cf.  Federated  De-
partment  Stores,  Inc.  v.  Moitie,  452  U. S.  394,  398  (1981) 
(noting  “the  res  judicata  consequences  of  a  final,  unap-
pealed judgment on the merits”).

This case is also unlike Astoria, where a plaintiff claim-
ing  discrimination  first  went  to  an  agency  and  then  sued
in court about the same alleged conduct.  See 501 U. S., at 
111.  The  Court  concluded,  quite  sensibly,  that  the  struc-
ture  of  that  scheme  indicated  that  the  agency  decision
could  not  ground  issue  preclusion.    When  exhausting  an 
administrative  process  is  a  prerequisite  to  suit  in  court, 
giving  preclusive  effect  to  the  agency’s  determination  in 
that very administrative process could render the judicial 
suit  “strictly  pro  forma.”  Ibid.;  see  also  Elliott,  supra,  at 
795–796  (similar  analysis).   Here,  if  a  party  urged  a  dis-
trict  court reviewing a  TTAB registration decision to give