Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Subrin
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
Citation:575 U.S. 138 (2015)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Defendant manufactured fasteners for use in the construction industry under the trade name “SEALTITE.” Plaintiff manufactured fasteners for use in the aerospace industry under the trade name “SEALTIGHT.” Defendant sought to register its trade name pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, through a United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) administrative process. Plaintiff opposed the registration in a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against Defendant for trademark infringement. While the action was pending in district court, the TTAB held for Plaintiff, concluding that Defendant’s mark could not be registered because it too closely resembled Plaintiff’s mark and could cause confusion. Plaintiff argued in district court that Defendant could not contest the likelihood of confusion due to the preclusive effect of the TTAB’s decision. The district court disagreed, reasoning that the TTAB was not an Article III court. After a trial, a jury held for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals affirmed because (1) the TTAB used different factors to evaluate likelihood of confusion, (2) the TTAB placed too much emphasis on the appearances and sounds of the two marks, and (3) Defendant had the burden of persuasion before the TTAB while Plaintiff had the burden of persuasion before the district court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.