The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments Tuesday in two cases. In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on (1) whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) [official website] finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes Hargis from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element; and (2) whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the TTAB’s finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it. Under the Lanham Act [text], a person generally may neither use nor register a mark that would be “likely to cause confusion” with an existing mark. If a person uses a mark that “is likely to cause confusion” with an existing registered mark, the owner of the registered mark may sue in federal court for trademark infringement. If a person seeks to register a mark that is “likely … to cause confusion” with an existing registered mark, the owner of the existing registered mark may oppose the registration of the new mark before the TTAB. B&B Hardware manufactures sealing fasteners and owns the registered mark “SEALTIGHT.” Hargis also manufactures sealing fasteners, and it used and sought to register the mark “SEALTITE.” The TTAB held that Hargis’s mark created a likelihood of confusion with B&B’s mark. The district court, however, found in favor of Hargis, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed [opinion].

In Whitfield v. United States [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on whether 18 USC § 2113(e)‘s [text] forced-accompaniment offense requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim. A conviction under the federal bank robbery statute carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison but no minimum sentence. If the bank robber forces another person “to accompany him” during the robbery or while in flight, however, that additional offense carries a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld [opinion] defendant Larry Whitfield’s 264-month sentence.