103137P.pdf   08/25/2015  B & B Hardware  v.  Hargis Industries
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-3137
                          and No:  11-1247
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil case. On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, see B&B 
   Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1293 (2015). For this 
   court's prior opinion in the matter, see B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis 
   Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2013). Having reviewed the parties' 
   supplemental briefs, the court determines that the ordinary elements of 
   issue preclusion have been met, and the usages of the mark adjudicated 
   before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) were materially the 
   same as the usages before the district court; accordingly, the district 
   court's judgment is vacated and the matter remanded for further 
   proceedings, including what remedies may be awarded for infringement; on 
   remand, the district court shall give preclusive effect to the decision of 
   the TTAB on likelihood of confusion. 
  
103137P.pdf   05/01/2013  B & B Hardware  v.  Hargis Industries
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-3137
                          and No:  11-1247
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
   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.