Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-352
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 05:09:13
Document Index: 302299209

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1051', '§1051', '§1051', '§20', '§20', '§1052', '§27', '§28', '§83', '§28', '§5', '§3', '§1119', '§21', '§32', '§23', '§27', '§28', '§4423', '§1057', '§1065', '§1114', '§1052', '§422', '§516', '§1', '§633', '§1067', '§102', '§1115', '§1071', '§706', '§1', '§21']

B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
This case concerns the application of issue preclusion in the context of trademark law. Petitioner, B&B Hardware, Inc. (B&B), and respondent Hargis Industries, Inc. (Hargis), both use similar trademarks; B&B owns SEALTIGHT while Hargis owns SEALTITE. Under the Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1051 et seq., an applicant can seek to register a trademark through an administrative process within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). But if another party be lieves that the PTO should not register a mark because it is too similar to its own, that party can oppose registration before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Here, Hargis tried to register the mark SEALTITE, but B&B opposed SEALTITE’s registration. After a lengthy proceeding, the TTAB agreed with B&B that SEALTITE should not be registered.
To obtain the benefits of registration, a mark owner files an application with the PTO. §1051. The application must include, among other things, “the date of the applicant’s first use of the mark, the date of the applicant’s first use of the mark in commerce, the goods in connection with which the mark is used, and a drawing of the mark.” §1051(a)(2). The usages listed in the application—i.e., those goods on which the mark appears along with, if applicable, their channels of distribution—are critical. See, e.g., 3 McCarthy §20:24, at 20–83 (“[T]he applicant’s right to register must be made on the basis of the goods described in the application”); id., §20:15, at 20–85 (explaining that if an “application does not delimit any spe-cific trade channels of distribution, no limitation will be” applied). The PTO generally cannot register a mark which “so resembles” another mark “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.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(d).
For purposes here, we pick up the story in 2002, when the PTO published SEALTITE in the Official Gazette. This prompted opposition proceedings before the TTAB, 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 company to place orders. Hargis rejoined that the companies sell different products, for different uses, to different types of consumers, through different channels of trade.
This Court has long recognized that “the determination of a question directly involved in one action is conclusive as to that question in a second suit.” Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 354 (1877). The idea is straightforward: Once a court has decided an issue, it is “forever settled as between the parties,” Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Assn. 283 U. S. 522, 525 (1931), thereby “protect[ing]” against “the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[ing] judicial resources, and foster[ing] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent verdicts,” Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153–154 (1979). In short, “a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 107 (1991).
Although the idea of issue preclusion is straightforward, it can be challenging to implement. The Court, therefore, regularly turns to the Restatement (Second) of Judgments for a statement of the ordinary elements of issue preclusion. See, e.g., Bobby v. Bies, 556 U. S. 825, 834 (2009); New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 748–749 (2001); Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U. S. 222, 233, n. 5 (1998). The Restatement explains that subject to certain well-known exceptions, the general rule is that “[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §27, p. 250 (1980); see also id., §28, at 273 (listing exceptions such as whether appellate review was available or whether there were “differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed”).
Both this Court’s cases and the Restatement make clear that issue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is before two courts. Rather, where a single issue is before a court and an administrative agency, preclusion also often applies. Indeed, this Court has explained that because the principle of issue preclusion was so “well established” at common law, in those situations in which Congress has authorized agencies to resolve disputes, “courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with the expectation that the principle [of issue preclusion] will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.” Astoria, supra, at 108. This reflects the Court’s longstanding view that “ ‘[w]hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose.’ ” University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U. S. 788, 797–798 (1986) (quoting United States v. UtahConstr. & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 422 (1966)); see also Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. Chicago & North Western Transp. Co., 467 U. S. 622, 636, n. 15 (1984) (noting Utah Construction); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 484–485, n. 26 (1982) (characterizing Utah Construction’s discussion of administrative preclusion as a holding); Restatement (Second) of Judgments §83(1), at 266 (explaining that, with some limits, “a valid and final adjudicative determination by an administrative tribunal has the same effects under the rules of res judicata, subject to the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of a court”).
Although apparently accepting Astoria and Utah Construction,1 Hargis argues that we should not read the Lanham Act (or, presumably, many other federal statutes) as authorizing issue preclusion. Otherwise, Hargis warns, the Court would have to confront “ ‘grave and doubtful questions’ as to the Lanham Act’s consistency with the Seventh Amendment and Article III of the Constitution.” Brief for Respondent 38 (quoting United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909)). We are not persuaded.
At the outset, we note that Hargis does not argue that giving issue preclusive effect to the TTAB’s decision would be unconstitutional. Instead, Hargis contends only that we should read the Lanham Act narrowly because a broad reading might be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent 37, 39, 40, 41–42. The likely reason that Hargis has not directly advanced a constitutional argument is that, at least as to a jury trial right, Hargis did not even list the Seventh Amendment as an authority in its appellee brief to the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, although Hargis pressed an Article III argument below, in its opposition to certiorari in this Court, Hargis seemingly con-ceded that TTAB decisions can sometimes ground issue preclusion, though it now protests otherwise. See Supplemental Brief in Opposition 2. To the extent, if any, that there could be a meritorious constitutional objection, it is not before us. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 231–232 (1995).
We reject Hargis’ statutory argument that we should jettison administrative preclusion in whole or in part to avoid potential constitutional concerns. As to the Seventh Amendment, for instance, the Court has already held that the right to a jury trial does not negate the issue-preclusive effect of a judgment, even if that judgment was entered by a juryless tribunal. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 337 (1979). It would seem to follow naturally that although the Seventh Amendment creates a jury trial right in suits for trademark damages, see Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 477, 479–480 (1962), TTAB decisions still can have preclusive effect in such suits. Hargis disputes this reasoning even though it admits that in 1791 “ ‘a party was not entitled to have a jury determine issues that had been previously adjudi-cated by a chancellor in equity.’ ” Brief for Respondent 39 (quoting Parklane Hosiery, supra, at 333). Instead, Hargis contends that issue preclusion should not apply to TTAB registration decisions because there were no agencies at common law. But our precedent holds that the Seventh Amendment does not strip competent tribunals of the power to issue judgments with preclusive effect; that logic would not seem to turn on the nature of the competent tribunal. And at the same time, adopting Hargis’ view would dramatically undercut agency preclusion, despite what the Court has already said to the contrary. Nothing in Hargis’ avoidance argument is weighty enough to overcome these weaknesses.
The claim that we should read the Lanham Act narrowly to avoid Article III concerns is equally unavailing—and for similar reasons. Hargis argues that because it might violate Article III if an agency could make a decision with preclusive effect in a later proceeding before a federal court, we should conclude, as a statutory matter, that issue preclusion is unavailable. Such a holding would not fit with our precedent. For instance, in Elliott, the Court, relying on Utah Construction, explained that absent a contrary indication, Congress presumptively intends that an agency’s determination (there, a state agency) has preclusive effect. 478 U. S., at 796–799; see also Astoria, 501 U. S., at 110 (recognizing the “presumption”). To be sure, the Court has never addressed whether such preclusion offends Article III. But because this Court’s cases are so clear, there is no ambiguity for this Court to sidestep through constitutional avoidance.2
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 concluded 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 decision, 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 Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U. S. 394, 398 (1981) (noting “the res judicata consequences of a final, unappealed judgment on the merits”).
What matters here is that registration is not a prerequisite to an infringement action. Rather, it is a separate proceeding to decide separate rights. Neither is issue preclusion a one-way street. When a district court, as part of its judgment, decides an issue that overlaps with part of the TTAB’s analysis, the TTAB gives preclusive effect to the court’s judgment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 54a– 55a (giving preclusive effect to the District Court’s ear- lier decision regarding SEALTIGHT’s distinctiveness be-cause the issue “was actually litigated and necessarily determined”).
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). Second, 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, just as they can adjudicate infringement in suits seeking judicial review of registration decisions. See 15 U. S. C. §1119; 3 McCarthy §21:20. There is no reason to think that the same district judge in the same case should apply two separate standards of likelihood of confusion.
Hargis’ argument falls short, however, because it mistakes a reason not to apply issue preclusion in some or even many cases as a reason never to apply issue preclusion. Just because the TTAB does not always consider the same usages as a district court does, it does not follow that the Board applies a different standard to the usages it does consider.4 If a mark owner uses its mark in ways that are materially the same as the usages included in its registration application, then the TTAB is deciding the same likelihood-of-confusion issue as a district court in infringement litigation. By contrast, if a mark owner uses its mark in ways that are materially unlike the usages in its application, then the TTAB is not deciding the same issue. Thus, if the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties’ marks, the TTAB’s decision should “have no later preclusive effect in a suit where actual usage in the marketplace is the paramount issue.” 6 McCarthy §32:101, at 32–246.
Materiality, of course, is essential—trivial variations between the usages set out in an application and the use of a mark in the marketplace do not create different “issues,” just as trivial variations do not create different “marks.” See generally 4 id., §23:50, at 23–265 (explaining that “adding descriptive or non-distinctive” elements to another’s mark generally will not negate confusion). Otherwise, a party could escape the preclusive effect of an adverse judgment simply by adding an immaterial feature to its mark. That is not the law. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Judgments §27, Comment c, at 252–253 (explaining that “issue” must be understood broadly enough “to prevent repetitious litigation of what is essentially the same dispute”); United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 464 U. S. 165, 172 (1984) (applying issue preclusion where a party sought to “litigate twice . . . an issue arising . . . from virtually identical facts” because the “factual differ ences” were “of no legal significance”).
Hargis also contends that the stakes for registration are so much lower than for infringement that issue preclusion should never apply to TTAB decisions. Issue preclusion may be inapt if “the amount in controversy in the first action [was] so small in relation to the amount in controversy in the second that preclusion would be plainly unfair.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §28, Comment j, at 283–284. After all, “[f]ew . . . litigants would spend $50,000 to defend a $5,000 claim.” Wright & Miller §4423, at 612. Hargis is wrong, however, that this exception to issue preclusion applies to every registration. To the contrary: When registration is opposed, there is good reason to think that both sides will take the matter seriously.
The benefits of registration are substantial. Registration is “prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark,” 15 U. S. C. §1057(b), and is a precondition for a mark to become “incontestable,” §1065. Incontestability is a powerful protection. See, e.g., Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985) (holding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive); see also id., at 193 (explaining that “Con-gress determined that . . . ‘trademarks should receive nationally the greatest protection that can be given them’ ” and that “[a]mong the new protections created by the Lanham Act were the statutory provisions that allow a federally registered mark to become incontestable” (quoting S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1946))).
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)).
The presumption in favor of administrative preclusion the Court applies today was first announced in Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108 (1991). In that case, the Court confronted the question “whether claimants under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 [(ADEA)] . . . are collaterally estopped to relitigate in federal court the judicially unreviewed findings of a state administrative agency made with respect to an age-discrimination claim.” Id., at 106. It answered that question in the negative, concluding that the availability of administrative preclusion was an issue of statutory construction and that the particular statute at issue “carrie[d] an implication that the federal courts should recognize no [such] preclusion.” Id., at 108, 110.
Despite rejecting the availability of preclusion, the Court nevertheless, in dictum, announced a presumption in favor of giving preclusive effect to administrative determinations “where Congress has failed expressly or impliedly to evince any intention on the issue.” Id., at 110. That dictum rested on two premises. First, that “Con- gress is understood to legislate against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles.” Id., at 108. And, second, that the Court had “long favored application of the common-law doctrines of collateral estoppel (as to issues) and res judicata (as to claims) to those determinations of administrative bodies that have attained finality.” Id., at 107.
I do not quarrel with the first premise, but I have serious doubts about the second. The Court in Astoria offered only one decision predating the enactment of the ADEA to shore up its assertion that Congress had legislated against a background principle in favor of administrative preclusion—United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 422 (1966). See Astoria, supra, at 107.1 And that decision cannot be read for the broad proposition asserted by the Court.
To create a presumption based solely on dictum would be bad enough, but the principles Utah Construction referred to were far too equivocal to constitute “long-established and familiar” background principles of the common law of the sort on which we base our statutory inferences. Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779, 783 (1952). Although Utah Construction asserted that “[w]hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata to enforce repose,” it admitted that “courts have used language to the effect that res judicata principles do not apply to administrative proceedings.” 384 U. S., at 421–422. These contradictory signals are not typically the stuff of which background rules of common law are made. Cf. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 17) (presuming that Congress intended to retain the “first sale” doctrine in copyright statutes based on that common-law doctrine’s “impeccable historic pedigree”).
Nineteenth century courts generally understood the term “court of competent jurisdiction” to include all courts with authority and jurisdiction conclusively to resolve a dispute. See J. Wells, A Treatise on the Doctrines of Res Judicata and Stare Decisis §§422–423, pp. 336–338 (1878); 2 Black, supra, §516, at 613–614. Thus, courts of law, courts of equity, admiralty courts, and foreign courts could all satisfy the requirement of a “[c]ourt of competent juris diction.” Hopkins, 6 Wheat., at 113. This broad definition served the interest in finality that supports preclusion doctrines, without which “an end could never be put to litigation.” Id., at 114.
But however broadly “[c]ourt of competent jurisdiction” was defined, it would require quite a leap to say that the concept encompasses administrative agencies, which were recognized as categorically different from courts. E.g., Pearson v. Williams, 202 U. S. 281 (1906); F. Cooper, Administrative Agencies and the Courts 241–242 (1951) (taking the position that agencies “are not courts, and their determinations are not judgments”). This distinction stems from the Constitution itself, which vests the “judicial Power” not in administrative agencies, but in federal courts, whose independence is safeguarded by certain constitutional requirements. Art. III, §1. One of the consequences of this allocation of judicial power is that agencies possess limited ability to act in a judicial capacity in cases resolving traditional disputes between private parties. See infra, at 11–12.
Consistent with that comment, federal courts approved of administrative preclusion in narrow circumstances arguably involving only claims against the Government, over which Congress exercises a broader measure of control.2 In the 19th century, for instance, this Court effectively gave preclusive effect to the decisions of the U. S. Land Department with respect to land patents when it held such patents unreviewable in federal court “for mere errors of judgment.” Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 646 (1882) (“A patent, in a court of law, is conclusive as to all matters properly determined by the Land Department”). Commentators explained that these cases could not truly be understood to involve an application of res judicata or collateral estoppel—for, after all, administrative agencies are not courts—but rather a “species of equitable estoppel.” Cooper, supra, at 242; see also 2 A. Freeman, Law of Judgments §633, p. 1335 (5th ed. rev. 1925) (explaining that “the immunity from judicial review” for certain administrative decisions was “not based upon the doctrine of res judicata nor . . . governed by exactly the same rules”). As one commentator put it, res judicata could “not apply, in any strict or technical sense, to the decisions of administrative agencies.” Cooper, supra, at 241.
In light of this history, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to apply administrative preclusion in the context of the Lanham Act.4 To start, the Lanham Act was en- acted in 1946, 20 years before this Court said—even in dic- tum—that administrative preclusion was an established common-law principle. Thus, even if one thought that the dictum in Utah Construction were sufficient to establish a common-law principle in favor of preclusion, that conclusion would not warrant applying Astoria’s presumption to this enactment from the 1940’s. And, construing the Act on its own terms, I see no reason to conclude that Congress intended administrative preclusion to apply to TTAB findings of fact in a subsequent trademark infringement suit. The Act says nothing to indicate such an intent, and several features of the Act support the contrary inference.
The first feature indicating that Congress did not intend preclusion to apply is the limited authority the Act gives the TTAB. The Act authorizes the TTAB only to “determine and decide the respective rights of [trademark] registration,” 15 U. S. C. §1067(a), thereby withholding any authority from the TTAB to “determine the right to use” a trademark or to “decide broader questions of infringement or unfair competition,” TTAB Manual of Procedure §102.01 (2014). This limited job description indicates that TTAB’s conclusions regarding registration were never meant to become decisive—through application of administrative preclusion—in subsequent infringement suits. See 15 U. S. C. §1115(a) (providing that registration of a mark “shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of 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 subsequent infringement suit.
A second indication that Congress did not intend administrative 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 factfindings 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. Dickinson, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law 39–75 (1927). Sometimes this Court refused to review factual determinations of administrative agencies at all, Smelting Co., 104 U. S., at 640, 646, and sometimes it allowed lower courts to engage in essentially de novo review of factual determinations, see ICC v. Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 174 (1897); Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 351–355 (1876).
In the early 20th century, the Court began to move toward substantial-evidence review of administrative determinations involving mixed questions of law and fact, ICC v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 546–548 (1912), but reserved the authority to review de novo any so-called “jurisdictional facts.” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62–63 (1932). Courts then struggled to determine the boundary between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional facts, and thus to determine the appropriate standard of review for administrative decisions. See, e.g., Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 142 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result) (noting the “casuistic difficulties spawned” in Crowell and the “attritions of that case through later decisions”). Although Congress provided for substantial-evidence review in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(E), it required de novo review in the Lanham Act.
Executive agencies derive their authority from Article II of the Constitution, which vests “[t]he executive power” in “a President of the United States,” Art. II, §1, cl. 1. Executive agencies are thus part of the political branches of Government and make decisions “not by fixed rules of law, but by the application of governmental discretion or pol- icy.” Dickinson, supra, at 35–36; see, e.g., Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (An agency “is entitled to assess administrative records and evaluate priorities in light of the philosophy of the administration”). They are not constituted to exercise “independent judgment,” but to be responsive to the pressures of the political branches. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., ante, at 8 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment).
To the extent that administrative agencies could, consistent with the Constitution, function as courts, they might only be able to do so with respect to claims involving public or quasi-private rights. See Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 68–70 (1982) (plurality opinion); see also Nelson 561–574; Dickinson, supra, at 6. Public rights are those belonging to the public as a whole, see Nelson 566, whereas quasi-private rights, or statutory entitlements, are those “ ‘privileges’ ” or “ ‘franchises’ ” that are bestowed by the government on individuals, id., at 567; see, e.g., Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 451 (1929) (discussing claims “arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it”).
It is true that, in the New Deal era, the Court sometimes gave preclusive effect to administrative findings of fact in tax cases, which could be construed to implicate private rights. See, e.g., Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 401–404 (1940); Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 289 U. S. 620, 622–624 (1933). But administrative tax determinations may simply have enjoyed a special historical status, in which case this practice might be best understood as a limited deviation from a general distinction between public and private rights. See Nelson 588–590.
The majority, however, would have Article III courts decide infringement claims where the central issue—whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion between two trademarks—has already been decided by an executive agency. This raises two potential constitutional concerns. First, it may deprive a trademark holder of the opportunity to have a core private right adjudicated in an Article III court. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 21). Second, it may effect a transfer of a core attribute of the judicial power to an executive agency. Cf. Perez, ante, at 10–12 (opinion of Thomas, J.) (explaining that interpretation of regulations having the force and effect of law is likely a core attribute of the judicial power that cannot be transferred to an executive agency). Administrative preclusion thus threatens to “sap the judicial power as it exists under the Federal Constitution, and to establish a government of a bureaucratic character alien to our own system, wher- ever fundamental rights depend . . . upon the facts, and finality as to facts becomes in effect finality in law.” Crowell, 285 U. S., at 57.
1 The Court also cited University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U. S. 788, 798 (1986), but because that decision postdated the enactment of the ADEA by almost two decades and itself primarily relied on Utah Construction it cannot be evidence of any background principle existing at the relevant time.
4 The majority insists that we must apply the presumption of administrative preclusion because the Court has “repeatedly endorsed Utah Construction” and the parties do not challenge “its historical accuracy.” Ante, at 12, n. 2. But regardless of whether the Court has endorsed Utah Construction’s dictum, the Court has never applied the presumption of administrative preclusion to the Lanham Act. Even if the Court’s description of the presumption were not dictum, no principle of stare decisis requires us to extend a tool of statutory interpretation from one statute to another without first considering whether it is appropriate for that statute. Cf. CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 469–470 (2008) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“[S]tare decisis, designed to be a principle of stability or repose, [should not] become a vehicle of change whereby an error in one area metastasizes into others, thereby distorting the law”). As for the parties’ lack of argument, I would not treat tools of statutory interpretation as claims that can be forfeited. If, for example, one party peppered its brief with legislative history, and the opposing party did not challenge the propriety of using legislative history, I still would not consider myself bound to rely upon it. The same is true here: Although the Court has commented in the past that the presumption of administrative preclusion would apply to other statutes, we are not bound to apply it now to the Lanham Act, even if the parties have assumed we would.
5 The original 1946 Lanham Act provided for appeal to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. See §21, 60 Stat. 435.