Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 19

16 

B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

Circuit  use  different  factors  to  assess  likelihood  of  confu-
sion.  For  one  thing,  the  factors  are  not  fundamentally 
different,  and  “[m]inor  variations  in  the  application  of 
what  is  in  essence  the  same  legal  standard  do  not  defeat 
preclusion.”  Id.,  at  ___,  n. 9  (slip  op.,  at  12,  n. 9).    More 
important,  if  federal  law  provides  a  single  standard,  par-
ties cannot escape preclusion simply by litigating anew in
tribunals  that  apply  that  one  standard  differently.    A 
contrary  rule  would  encourage  the  very  evils  that  issue 
preclusion helps to prevent.

The  real  question,  therefore,  is  whether  likelihood  of 
confusion for purposes of registration is the same standard
as  likelihood  of  confusion  for  purposes  of  infringement. 
We  conclude  it  is,  for  at  least  three  reasons.    First,  the 
operative  language  is  essentially  the  same;  the  fact  that 
the registration provision separates “likely” from “to cause 
confusion,  or  to  cause  mistake,  or  to  deceive”  does  not 
change  that  reality.3  See  2  Gilson  §5.01[2][a],  at  5–17 
(explaining  that  “the  same  statutory  test”  applies).    Sec-
ond,  the  likelihood-of-confusion  language  that  Congress
used  in  these  Lanham  Act  provisions  has  been  central  to
trademark  registration  since  at  least  1881.  See  Act  of 
Mar.  3,  1881,  ch.  138,  §3,  21  Stat.  503  (using  a  “likely  to 
cause  confusion”  standard  for  registration).  That  could 
hardly  have  been  by  accident.    And  third,  district  courts 
can  cancel  registrations  during  infringement  litigation, 
—————— 

3 Compare  15  U. S. C.  §1114(1)  (“Any  person  who  shall  . . .  use  in 
commerce  any  . . .  mark  in  connection  with  the  sale,  offering  for  sale,
distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection 
with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or 
to  deceive  . . .  shall  be  liable  in  a  civil  action  by  the  registrant  for  the 
remedies  hereinafter  provided”  (emphasis  added))  with  §1052(d)  (“No
trademark . . . shall be refused registration . . . unless it . . . [c]onsists of
or  comprises  a  mark  which  so  resembles  a  mark  registered  in  the 
Patent  and  Trademark  Office  . . .  as  to  be  likely,  when  used  on  or  in 
connection  with  the  goods  of  the  applicant,  to  cause  confusion,  or  to 
cause mistake, or to deceive . . .” (emphasis added)).