Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

complete  with  discovery,  including  depositions.    B&B  ar-
gued  that  SEALTITE  could  not  be  registered  because  it 
is confusingly similar to SEALTIGHT.  B&B explained, for
instance,  that  both  companies  have  an  online  presence,
the  largest  distributor  of  fasteners  sells  both  companies’
products,  and  consumers  sometimes  call  the  wrong  com-
pany to place orders.  Hargis rejoined that the companies 
sell different products, for different uses, to different types 
of consumers, through different channels of trade. 

id.,  at  70a, 

Invoking  a  number  of  the  DuPont  factors,  the  TTAB 
sided  with  B&B.    The  Board  considered,  for  instance, 
whether SEALTIGHT is famous (it’s not, said the Board),
how the two products are used (differently), how much the
marks  resemble  each  other  (very  much),  and  whether
customers are actually confused (perhaps sometimes).  See 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a–71a.  Concluding that “the most 
critical  factors  in  [its] likelihood of  confusion analysis  are 
the  similarities  of  the  marks  and  the  similarity  of  the
goods,” 
that 
SEALTITE—when  “used  in  connection  with  ‘self-piercing
and  self-drilling  metal  screws  for  use  in  the  manufacture
of  metal  and  post-frame  buildings’ ”—could  not  be  regis-
tered  because  it  “so  resembles”  SEALTIGHT  when  “used 
in connection with fasteners that provide leakproof protec-
tion from liquids and gases, fasteners that have a captive 
o-ring,  and  ‘threaded  or  unthreaded  metal  fastners  and 
other related hardware . . . for use in the aerospace indus-
try’ as to be likely to cause confusion,” id., at 71a.  Despite
a  right  to  do  so,  Hargis  did  not  seek  judicial  review  in
either the Federal Circuit or District Court. 

the  TTAB  determined 

All  the  while,  B&B  had  sued  Hargis  for  infringement. 
Before the District Court ruled on likelihood of confusion, 
however, the TTAB announced its decision.  After a series 
of  proceedings  not  relevant  here,  B&B  argued  to  the  Dis-
trict  Court  that  Hargis  could  not  contest  likelihood  of 
confusion  because  of  the  preclusive  effect  of  the  TTAB