B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 17-1570 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Hargis in an action brought by B&B, alleging a trademark infringement claim involving B&B's SEALTIGHT mark and Hargis' SEALTITE mark. The court found no plain error in the district court's determination that B&B willfully failed to disclose a prior adverse decision and thus the district court did not err in its determination that B&B committed fraud on the PTO and that Hargis was therefore entitled to the affirmative defense of fraud under 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)(1). The court also held that B&B's claims were barred by collateral estoppel because B&B failed to present evidence of any significant intervening factual change from the date of the 2000 jury verdict. In regard to Hargis' cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Hargis' motion for attorney fees and nontaxable litigation costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding this an unexceptional case.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Trademarks. For a summary of the appeals in this matter, see B&B Hardware v. Hargis (Hargis V), 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013). At this end of this trial, the jury found Hargis had infringed on B&B's trademark but did not do so willfully, awarded B&B none of Hargies's profits, and found for Hargis on its counterclaims and its affirmative defense of fraud. Based on the jury's findings, the district court found that B&B's mark of "Sealtight" was not entitled to incontestability status and that B&B therefore had not pled an intervening change in circumstances allowing it to relitigage claims raised in the parties' 2000 jury trial. Further, treating the jury's finding on profits as advisory, the court found it would be inequitable to award B&B any of Hargis's profits and refused to disgorge Hargis of any of the profits. The jury verdict finding fraud and lack of willfulness was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disgorge Hargis of its profits; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hargis's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
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.