B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, et al, No. 10-3137 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseB&B, manufacturer and seller of a product called "Sealtight," filed suit against Hargis, manufacturer of a product called "Sealtite," claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Hargis counterclaimed for false advertising and false designation of origin. The jury returned a verdict which rejected B&B's claims but found in favor of Hargis on its counterclaims. On appeal, B&B argued that the district court should have given preclusive effect to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) findings concerning the likelihood of confusion of the two companies' trademarks. B&B also appealed the award of attorney fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court properly refused to apply collateral estoppel to the TTAB's decision; rejected B&B's argument that the TTAB's factual findings from a trademark registration case were entitled to deference by the district court; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the TTAB's decision from the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of B&B's motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternative motion for a new trial based on its claim of issue preclusion; affirmed the district court's evidentiary decisions; and remanded the award of attorney fees with directions to amend the award by deducting Hargis's attorney fees for the prior appeal.
Court Description: Civil case - Trademarks. For the court's prior opinions in the case, see B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 569 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2009); and B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, 252 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2001). Assuming that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decisions may be entitled to preclusive effect, such application is not appropriate here because the same likelihood-of-confusion issues were not decided by the Board as were brought in the action before the district court; the court rejects B&B's argument that the Board's factual findings from a trademark registration case are entitled to deference by the district court; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the Board's decision into evidence as over the course of the seven-day trial the jury was presented with evidence regarding likelihood of confusion as it pertained to the factors under which the jury decided the claim of trademark infringement and the probative value of the Board's ultimate conclusion was minimal; the district court erred in including an award of attorneys' fees to Hargis for B&B's prior appeal as that appeal resulted in a ruling in B&B's favor and was not groundless or unreasonable; on remand, the court should amend its award of fees by deducting the fees for the appeal. Judge Colloton, dissenting.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 25, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.