Supreme Court Raises the Stakes for Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings

April 3, 2015

On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that quickly made waves in the trademark community. In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (Mar. 24, 2015), the Court held for the first time that certain rulings made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), such as whether a likelihood of confusion exists, can have binding effects on subsequent trademark infringement litigation. Although the Court cautioned that not all issues decided by the TTAB will result in such binding effects, the B&B Hardware decision will undoubtedly increase the gravity—and, likely, the time and expense—of proceedings before the TTAB.

Background on TTAB Proceedings vs. Federal Trademark Litigation

Although registration proceedings before the TTAB (such as Oppositions) have similarities in form to litigation in federal courts, TTAB proceedings differ substantially in that they are typically narrower in scope, are conducted with little, if any, oral testimony, and are focused only on potential registration and usually not on actual usage or money damages. TTAB proceedings tend to center on the visual and audible impressions of the marks at issue and on a comparison of the descriptions of goods or services as set forth in the respective applications. Federal court proceedings, on the other hand, focus primarily on uses of the marks in the marketplace and the actual goods and services sold under the respective marks. Thus, federal trademark litigation often involves a more thorough fact-finding process, whereas TTAB proceedings focus narrowly on the applications and/or registrations at issue.

Prior to B&B Hardware, the losing party in an Opposition action would have to weigh the costs and benefits of appealing the TTAB decision. In the past, a party may have operated under the assumption that the only risk in foregoing an appeal was the lost registration and that, if an issue of confusion arose in the future, the party would be free to litigate the merits in a federal district court.

Effect of B&B Hardware

In view of the Supreme Court's ruling in B&B Hardware, TTAB proceedings now may have binding effect on federal trademark litigation. Therefore, proceedings before the TTAB may be handled differently than in the past. Should the TTAB determine that a likelihood of confusion exists, the losing party may now risk forfeiting its ability to use or enforce its chosen mark in the marketplace. Moreover, although the losing party technically loses only its ability to register its mark, B&B Hardware suggests that the losing party may now also face a more serious risk of money damages in a trademark infringement action than was previously the case, depending on how the mark is used in the marketplace compared to the description of goods and services in the trademark application.

Because of the many new questions raised by B&B Hardware, individuals or businesses faced with TTAB proceedings should consult with an experienced attorney to discuss how best to address and adjudicate such proceedings, particularly in light of the substantial effect that the results can have on any and all future uses of the mark.

Firm Highlights
Diversity & Inclusion

Fatima G. Khan Elected President of South Asian Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

More
Client Alert

Public Access to Electronic Court Records in Missouri

More
Client Alert

New York State Regulator Discourages Ransomware Payments and Publishes New Cyber Insurance Risk Framework

More
Client Alert

COVID-19 Rescue Plan Act Expands Paid Leave Availability but Does Not Revive Employer Mandates

More
News

Jerina D. Phillips Offers COVID-19 Vaccination Advice for Employers in St. Louis Magazine Article

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast Hosts Ronald A. Norwood to Discuss Mentorship, Diversity & Inclusion in the Legal Industry, and the Importance of Equity for All

More
News

Meghan S. Largent and Lindsay S. C. Brinton Negotiate $700,000 Award to Cobb County, Georgia Landowners in Rails-to-Trails Case

More
Client Alert

Federal Appellate Court Determines a Website Is Not a “Place of Public Accommodation” Under the ADA

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond’s Article on Waivers of Consequential Damages is Published in Construction Executive

More
Client Alert

Have You Done Your Annual CCPA Housekeeping?

More
News

Kansas City Office of Lewis Rice Names New Member

More
News

Lindsay S. C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent Negotiate $1.4 Million Settlement for Landowners along Legacy Trail

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Hands Down Unanimous Decision Limiting FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Relief

More
Client Alert

Temporary COBRA Changes Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More
Client Alert

Virginia Passes Sweeping Data Privacy Legislation Similar to CCPA and GDPR

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Two Lewis Rice Members Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Programs

More
Client Alert

CROWN Act Legislation on the Verge of Passage in St. Louis City & County

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Gives Advice on Vaccination Acceptance in the Workforce in Society for Human Resource Management Article

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Lewis Rice Member Ronald A. Norwood Serves on Missouri Bar’s Special Committee on Lawyers of Color to Establish Diversity, Inclusion Programs

More
Client Alert

Model COBRA Notices Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More