Checklist · Intellectual Property

Discovery Before the TTAB: A Practical Checklist

Type: Checklist
Jurisdiction: National
Date: 2025-11-13
Topic: Intellectual Property

Discovery is where most oppositions and cancellations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are actually won or lost, yet it runs on rules that do not match district court. The Board layers the Federal Rules under 37 C.F.R. Part 2 and the TBMP, imposes hard numerical caps and a strict administrative calendar, and then holds a paper trial in which the documents and admissions you extract in discovery become much of the evidentiary record. This checklist walks counsel and self-represented parties phase by phase through the discovery conference and initial disclosures, the discovery period, sequencing interrogatories, document requests, and admissions within the uniform 75-request caps, depositions and subpoenas, expert disclosure, the standard protective order, motions to compel, and the build toward a DuPont likelihood-of-confusion record. Each phase carries WHY notes, traps, and invented worked examples. Stated as amended through the 2017 Board rules; confirm the current 37 C.F.R. Part 2 and TBMP before relying on any limit or deadline.

Discovery Before the TTAB: A Practical Checklist

Intellectual Property > Trademark Litigation | Published 13 November 2025 - Updated 15 March 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

Discovery before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board borrows the tools of federal civil litigation and bolts them onto an administrative timetable with hard caps, compulsory cooperation, and a trial conducted entirely on paper. Because the Board decides only registrability, it polices proportionality hard; because the fact-finder never sees a live witness cross-examined, the discovery you obtain becomes the evidence. This checklist gives you the workflow, the deadlines that cascade, and the traps that end cases before trial.

Keywords: TTAB discovery, discovery conference, initial disclosures, interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, 75-request cap, 37 C.F.R. § 2.120, TBMP, expert disclosure, notice of reliance, motion to compel, standard protective order, ESTTA, TTABVUE, DuPont factors, deemed admissions.

A trademark lawyer who has tried a case in federal district court walks into a Board proceeding assuming the discovery rules travel with her. Most of them do not. The interrogatories, the requests for production, the requests for admission, the depositions - the machinery is familiar. The chassis it rides on is not. The Board runs discovery on an administrative clock with fixed windows, imposes numerical limits found nowhere in the Federal Rules, requires the parties to cooperate on pain of losing the right to compel, and then conducts a trial in which no witness ever takes a stand in front of the judges. In that structure, discovery is not a preliminary skirmish that sets up a live trial. Discovery is a large part of the trial. The admissions you pin down, the documents you extract, and the deposition transcripts you take often supply the whole evidentiary record on which the Board decides whether a mark registers.

This checklist is the operational companion to the deeper doctrinal treatment in Discovery Before the TTAB: Interrogatories, Document Requests, and Admissions in Trademark Oppositions and Cancellations. It applies with equal force whether you are prosecuting an opposition to a published application or a petition to cancel an existing registration, and it sits inside the larger arc mapped by the TTAB Practice Toolkit. Work it in order. The phases build on each other, and the deadlines cascade: slip one, and every date behind it moves with it.

How TTAB Discovery Is Wired Differently

Before the first request goes out, internalize four structural features that separate the Board from district court. Everything downstream flows from them.

A three-layer stack of authority, with a controlling override. Board discovery is governed by three sources read together. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, principally Rules 26 through 37 and Rule 45, supply the base machinery. The Trademark Rules of Practice, 37 C.F.R. Part 2 - above all § 2.120 on discovery, § 2.116(g) on the standard protective order, § 2.119 on service, and § 2.196 on computing time - modify that machinery for Board practice. And the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP), Chapter 400 on disclosures and discovery and Chapter 500 on motions, tells you how the Board actually administers it. The rule to memorize: where the Trademark Rules and the Federal Rules conflict, the Trademark Rules control. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a) (Federal Rules apply "except as otherwise provided"). Reflexively importing a district-court practice the Board has displaced is the single most common category of error.

Jurisdiction limited to registrability. The Board is not a court. It cannot award damages, cannot enjoin infringement, and cannot decide whether anyone's use is unlawful. Its entire remit is whether a mark should register or a registration should stand. See 15 U.S.C. § 1067; 37 C.F.R. § 2.129. That narrow charter is the gravitational center of every proportionality fight. A demand that would be routine in an infringement suit - "produce all profit-and-loss statements for the last ten years" - is presumptively disproportionate before the Board, because the Board is not adjudicating profits. Calibrate every request to registrability, and you will rarely draw a sustainable objection.

Compulsory cooperation. The Board expects the parties to meet, confer, disclose, and stipulate, and it has teeth to enforce that expectation. A party that fails to participate in the discovery conference may forfeit the right to move to compel; a party that fails to make required disclosures may be barred from using the undisclosed witness or document at trial. Cooperation is not collegial garnish here. It is a jurisdictional-feeling precondition to relief.

A paper trial. There is no live trial before the Board. Testimony comes in by declaration or by deposition transcript during assigned testimony periods, and documentary evidence comes in largely through the notice of reliance. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.122-2.123. The consequence for discovery is profound: the fact-finder will never watch you cross-examine the opposing witness in real time. What the judges will read is the cold record you assembled in discovery. If you did not obtain the admission, the document, or the transcript answer during discovery, it usually is not in the case. Everything runs through ESTTA (electronic filing) and is visible on TTABVUE (the public docket) at the USPTO's Board site.

Hold those four features in mind and the rest of the checklist reads as a series of moves designed to exploit them.

Phase 1 - Read the Framework and Decode the Institution Order

[ ] Put all three layers of authority on the desk and keep them there: the Federal Rules (26-37, 45), the Trademark Rules (37 C.F.R. §§ 2.116, 2.119, 2.120, 2.121, 2.122, 2.123, 2.196), and the TBMP (Chapters 400 and 500).
[ ] Read the institution order line by line. It is your master calendar. It fixes the deadline to hold the discovery conference, the dates discovery opens and closes, the disclosure deadlines (initial, expert, and pretrial), and the three staggered testimony periods.
[ ] Confirm you are working from post-2017 limits: document requests and requests for admission are now capped at 75 each (they were once unlimited), and email is the default method of service.
[ ] Note the controlling-authority rule in the margin: where § 2.120 conflicts with the Federal Rules, § 2.120 wins.
[ ] Re-read the pleadings - the notice of opposition or petition to cancel and the answer. They fix the lawful outer boundary of discovery. Map each pleaded ground to its elements before you draft a single request.

WHY / traps. The Board's 2017 amendments (the final rule published at 81 Fed. Reg. 69,950 (Oct. 7, 2016), effective January 14, 2017) rewired discovery in ways old form files still get wrong. The two most dangerous obsolete assumptions are that RFPs and RFAs are unlimited and that discovery can be served up to the last day of the period. Both are false today, and both produce set-piece objections you will lose. The pleadings are the other trap: discovery reaches only what is relevant to a pleaded claim or defense. If your notice of opposition alleges only likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) but you want discovery into the applicant's alleged fraud, you cannot get it until you amend to plead fraud. Scope follows the pleading, not the other way around.

Worked example - the cascade. Suppose the institution order sets the discovery conference deadline for March 15, discovery opening March 15, initial disclosures due April 14, and discovery closing September 11. Counsel for the opposer, busy with an unrelated trial, lets the conference deadline drift to April 1 without seeking an extension. That single slip does not merely move one date. Because the opposer had not conferred, its motion to compel a deficient interrogatory answer months later is denied as procedurally barred, and because it served its own initial disclosures late, the applicant successfully moves to preclude two of the opposer's witnesses under the Board's disclosure-sanction practice. One missed conference metastasized into a crippled case. Calendar every date from the order on day one, and treat the conference as the load-bearing beam it is.

Phase 2 - The Discovery Conference and Initial Disclosures

[ ] Hold the mandatory discovery conference under Rule 26(f) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a), ordinarily within about 30 days after the answer is due and before discovery opens.
[ ] If the case is complex or the other side is difficult, request Board participation (an interlocutory attorney or Administrative Trademark Judge) no later than ten days before the conference deadline.
[ ] Cover the full Rule 26(f) agenda: the scope and timing of discovery; electronically stored information (custodians, date ranges, search terms, and production format); the handling of privilege, including a possible Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) clawback order; and the terms of the standard protective order.
[ ] Raise the two trademark-specific conference items the Board actively encourages: stipulating to expanded or reduced limits or to Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), and phasing discovery when a single threshold issue (priority, for instance) could dispose of the whole case.
[ ] Serve initial disclosures no later than 30 days after discovery opens - the witnesses and documents you may use to support your claims or defenses. Note what the Board omits: no insurance disclosures and no damages computation, because the Board awards neither.

WHY / traps. Three traps live in this phase, and each can be fatal. First, the conference is a precondition to compelling discovery: a party that skips or shortchanges it may find itself unable to bring a motion to compel later. Second, you must serve your own initial disclosures before you may seek discovery from the other side - fire off interrogatories before you have disclosed, and they are premature. Third, Rule 37(c)(1) preclusion is self-executing: a witness or document you should have disclosed but did not may be barred at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. That last trap is severe enough to warrant its own study; the mechanics are laid out in Rule 37(c)(1) and the Preclusion of Undisclosed Evidence, and the disclosure-and-plan discipline that prevents it is captured in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures and Discovery Plan checklist.

The conference is also your best and cheapest opportunity to shape the whole proceeding. Two moves pay outsized dividends. ACR lets the parties agree to a streamlined, summary-judgment-style resolution on a stipulated record - faster and far cheaper than the full trial sequence, and available under the Board's practice (see TBMP § 528.05(a)(2), § 702.04). Phasing lets you take priority discovery first when a clean priority win would end the case, deferring the expensive likelihood-of-confusion and survey work unless and until it matters.

Worked example - the ESI right-sizing. Imagine a cancellation petitioner - call it a hypothetical craft-cannery, "Tidewater Provisions" - petitioning to cancel a registration for TIDEWATER on the ground of likelihood of confusion. At the conference, the registrant proposes a sprawling ESI protocol: eight custodians, six years of email, and thirty search terms. Petitioner's counsel pushes back on proportionality, pointing out that the Board decides only registrability and that a confusion case turns on the marks, the goods, the channels, and any actual confusion - not on the registrant's internal deliberations at that scale. The parties settle on three custodians, a three-year window, and a tight term list, and memorialize a 502(d) clawback so an inadvertent privileged email does not waive privilege. That is proportionality doing real work, and it is exactly the calibration the Board expects. The general discipline is the same one covered in Federal Civil Discovery: Mastering the Tools, Rules, and Pitfalls and mapped end to end in The Federal Discovery Toolkit.

Phase 3 - Plan Scope, Proportionality, and Sequencing

[ ] Apply the Rule 26(b)(1) standard as amended in 2015: discovery must be relevant to a pleaded claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, weighed against the issues at stake, the amount in controversy (here, registrability), the parties' resources, and the burden versus the likely benefit.
[ ] Calibrate every financial request to strength and extent of use, not damages. Ask for "annual sales volumes and advertising expenditures by year and by channel," which speak to the fame and commercial strength that bear on the DuPont analysis - not "all profit-and-loss statements," which the Board has no reason to see.
[ ] Mine the early, free leads before drafting: the pleadings and answer, the parties' initial disclosures, the USPTO file histories on TSDR, publicly available corporate information, and the record of any related proceedings or prior disputes.
[ ] Sequence the devices deliberately. Serve interrogatories and requests for production together, early. Use those responses to target requests for admission. Reserve depositions for last, once the documents have told you where to dig.
[ ] Calendar backward from the close of discovery. Written requests must be served early enough that responses fall due on or before the close - in practice, at least 31 days before the close for interrogatories, RFPs, and RFAs, because responses are due in 30 days and the Board does not extend that boundary for weekends or holidays.

WHY / traps. Proportionality is measured against what you put in issue. Plead a sprawling, multi-ground case and you invite sprawling discovery in return; plead a tight registrability question and expansive ESI demands get reined in. The 31-day service rule catches careful lawyers who assume they can serve on the final day of the discovery period. They cannot. A request served on the last day yields responses that come due after the period has closed, which means - under the Board's practice - the requesting party gets nothing and cannot compel. Treat "31 days before close" as a hard wall, and give yourself a cushion.

Worked example - reframing the money question. An opposer wants to prove the applicant's mark is commercially weak and its use minimal. The tempting request - "Produce all financial statements, tax returns, and P&L reports since first use" - is overbroad, invites a proportionality objection, and asks for material the Board does not need. Reframed to registrability, the request becomes: "State annual unit sales and gross revenue for goods sold under the applied-for mark, by year, from first use to the present," paired with a document request for "representative advertising and promotional materials sufficient to show the manner and extent of use in each channel of trade." Same underlying goal - measuring strength of use - but now proportionate, defensible, and squarely tied to the DuPont likelihood-of-confusion factors the Board will actually weigh. For the factor-by-factor workup that tells you which facts to chase, see Working Up Likelihood of Confusion: A Practical Checklist.

Phase 4 - Deploy the Written Devices Within the 75-Request Caps

This is the heart of Board discovery, and the caps make drafting an exercise in discipline. Each device carries its own numerical ceiling and its own signature trap.

Interrogatories (cap: 75 including subparts; 30 days to respond)

[ ] Use interrogatories to lock down the identities: which witnesses and custodians know the facts, and who verified the answers.
[ ] Pin the first-use dates for each mark and each good or service - the raw material of any priority fight.
[ ] Map the trade channels, classes of purchasers, and price points - the DuPont factors that decide whether two marks travel in the same commercial lanes.
[ ] Identify licensees, related companies, and enforcement history - who else uses the mark, under what quality control, and against whom the party has policed.
[ ] Reserve contention interrogatories for late in the period, once discovery has developed, to force the other side to commit to the factual bases of its theories.

Interrogatories are your scalpel for facts that must be stated under oath by the organization itself. Draft them tightly; a bloated set burns your cap on subparts and buys you objections. The strategy for objecting-and-responding that your adversary will use against you - and that you will use in return - is the same one detailed in Interrogatories in Civil Litigation: A Comprehensive Guide to Objecting and Responding and operationalized in Answering Rule 33 Interrogatories: A Practical Checklist.

Requests for Production (cap: 75 including subparts)

[ ] Target the adoption and clearance file: how the party chose the mark, what searches it ran, and what it knew about others' marks. This is often the richest vein in the case.
[ ] Demand specimens and evidence of use - packaging, labels, web pages, advertising - showing the mark as actually used in commerce.
[ ] Collect sales and marketing records sufficient to show the extent and manner of use, framed to strength rather than damages.
[ ] Obtain communications touching confusion, complaints, misdirected orders, and enforcement.
[ ] Sweep in license, assignment, and quality-control documents, plus any consumer surveys, expert materials, and records of prior proceedings involving either mark.
[ ] Avoid the "all documents relating to" formulation on broad topics; it draws overbreadth objections. Do the work in a robust definitions-and-instructions section so defined terms carry the load.

The clearance file deserves special emphasis. A party's contemporaneous adoption records can prove knowledge of the senior mark, bad-faith intent, or - conversely - a good-faith clearance that supports the applicant. Document-production practice at the Board maps closely onto federal Rule 34 practice; the objecting-and-responding playbook is set out in Requests for Production: A Comprehensive Guide to Objecting and Responding, with the responder's discipline in Responding to Rule 34 Document Requests: A Practical Checklist.

Requests for Admission (cap: 75 including subparts, plus one bonus authentication request)

[ ] Use RFAs to authenticate documents, to establish undisputed background facts, and to force concessions on discrete elements - priority, dates of use, the absence of a survey, the channels of trade.
[ ] Exploit the bonus authentication request: the rules allow one additional request, beyond the cap, asking the party to authenticate any number of specified produced documents. It costs you nothing against your 75. Use it.
[ ] Do not ask a party to admit a pure legal conclusion - "Admit that your mark is likely to cause confusion." Ask instead for the underlying facts that build toward that conclusion.
[ ] Count subparts conservatively (TBMP § 405.03(d) on discrete-subpart counting), and if you genuinely need more than 75, seek a stipulation early. Note the asymmetry: a stipulated increase still requires Board approval, but a stipulated decrease does not.

WHY / traps. The Rule 36 trap is the most punishing feature in all of Board discovery, and it is automatic. A matter is deemed admitted if the responding party serves no timely response - no motion, no order, no warning. Miss the 30-day RFA deadline and the requesting party may simply proceed as though the facts are conceded, and later ask the Board to treat them as established. There is no analog in interrogatory or document practice. Calendar RFA deadlines with redundant reminders, and treat an inbound set of admissions requests as a code-red item on the docket. The mechanics, the response forms, and the narrow path to withdrawal are laid out in Answering Requests for Admission Under Rule 36 and the companion Answering Rule 36 Requests for Admission checklist.

Worked example - admissions as scaffolding. Return to the Tidewater cancellation. Petitioner's counsel, having received the registrant's production, serves a compact set of admissions: "Admit that you first used TIDEWATER in commerce no earlier than [date]." "Admit that you have not commissioned any consumer survey concerning confusion between the marks." "Admit that Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of your product packaging as sold in 2024." Each admission removes a fact from dispute and shrinks what petitioner must prove at trial. The registrant, buried in an unrelated deal closing, blows the 30-day deadline on the admissions set. Under Rule 36, those matters are deemed admitted - and the petitioner has just built a chunk of its trial record for the price of a certificate of service. That is the paper trial rewarding discipline and punishing inattention.

Phase 5 - Depositions, Non-Parties, and Confidentiality

[ ] Take discovery depositions within the limit of ten per side (leave of the Board required for more), and be sure each is both noticed and completed within the discovery period.
[ ] Use a Rule 30(b)(6) notice to bind the organization on the topics that matter: mark selection and clearance, first use, channels of trade, quality control, instances of actual confusion, and enforcement history.
[ ] For a foreign witness, expect deposition on written questions under Rule 31 absent a stipulation or a showing of good cause for an oral deposition.
[ ] For a non-party, obtain a Rule 45 subpoena from the U.S. district court in the district where the deposition or production will occur. The Board neither issues nor enforces subpoenas - budget extra time and money for this.
[ ] Rely on the standard protective order, which applies automatically under 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(g). Designate material "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" sparingly, and file any confidential evidence in redacted or under-seal form.

WHY / traps. Two distinctions separate the competent from the burned. The first is discovery deposition versus testimony deposition. A discovery deposition is a fact-finding tool; it is not automatically part of the trial record. To put an adverse party's discovery deposition into evidence you must qualify it - typically by notice of reliance during your testimony period - and your own witness's substantive trial testimony comes in later, by testimony deposition or declaration, not through the discovery transcript. Confuse the two and you reach trial with a deposition you cannot use. The 30(b)(6) craft and the mechanics of using a transcript as evidence are covered in Taking Depositions in Federal Civil Litigation, the pre-deposition workup in Preparing to Take a Deposition: A Practical Checklist, and the full arc in The Federal Deposition Toolkit.

The second is the discipline of confidentiality designations. Over-designation is a self-inflicted wound. Stamp everything "Attorneys' Eyes Only" and you forfeit credibility with the interlocutory attorney, invite a motion to de-designate, and hobble your own client's ability to review its adversary's materials. Reserve AEO for genuine competitive secrets - unredacted customer lists, live pricing formulas - and use plain "Confidential" for the rest.

The non-party subpoena deserves a planning note of its own. Because the Board cannot issue Rule 45 process, a party that needs documents or testimony from a third party - a former distributor, a market-research firm, a defecting employee's new employer - must go to the appropriate federal district court, comply with that court's local rules, and absorb the delay. When the third party is abroad, the problem compounds: cross-border discovery may require the Hague Evidence Convention or letters rogatory, a process detailed in the Hague Convention service checklist. Start early. A subpoena you first think about with 30 days left in the period is a subpoena you will not enforce in time.

Worked example - the 30(b)(6) that unlocks priority. In an opposition where priority is contested, the opposer notices a 30(b)(6) deposition on "the date, manner, and geographic scope of first use of the applied-for mark in commerce." The applicant's designated witness, unprepared on the topic, concedes that the earliest documented sale predates the application but postdates the opposer's registration - an admission that, once transcribed and offered by notice of reliance, effectively decides the priority question. The lesson runs both ways: prepare your own 30(b)(6) designee as if the case turns on the transcript, because in a paper trial, it might.

Phase 6 - Expert Disclosure and Survey Work

Experts get their own phase because their deadline is unforgiving and their preparation is slow.

[ ] Structure the schedule so the expert disclosure deadline falls before the close of discovery. Under Board practice, the expert disclosure date cannot be stipulated to a point after discovery closes - the parties can move it around within the period, but not past the wall.
[ ] Plan survey work early. A defensible likelihood-of-confusion survey takes months: designing the universe and stimulus, pretesting, fielding, and analysis all consume time you will not have if you start late.
[ ] Disclose the expert's identity and, on request, the report, and preserve the right to depose the opposing expert within the period.
[ ] Build the survey to survive a Daubert / Rule 702 challenge - proper universe, appropriate format (Eveready or Squirt as the facts dictate), a control group, and clean administration.

WHY / traps. The survey is the most powerful and the most fragile piece of evidence in many confusion cases. A well-built survey showing meaningful net confusion can carry a DuPont factor the way little else can; a sloppy one gets excluded and leaves a hole where your best evidence was supposed to be. The Board applies the same gatekeeping principles that govern expert testimony generally, so the methodology has to be right from the universe forward. The design discipline is set out in Designing a Defensible Confusion Survey: A Practical Checklist and Reading and Building Trademark Confusion Surveys; the exclusion battleground is mapped in Daubert and the Consumer Survey. The scheduling trap is the one that quietly kills good expert work: because the expert deadline is chained to the close of discovery, a party that treats survey design as a Phase 6 afterthought discovers there is no time left to field it.

Worked example - the survey that came too late. An opposer, confident in its confusion theory, waits until 45 days before the close of discovery to engage a survey expert. A rigorous Eveready survey needs roughly 10 to 14 weeks from kickoff to report. The expert cannot field, analyze, and produce a defensible report before the disclosure deadline, so the opposer either serves a rushed survey that will not survive a methodology challenge or serves none at all. Either way, the opposer walks into the paper trial without the one piece of affirmative confusion evidence that might have moved the needle. Survey scheduling is a Phase 2 conference decision, not a Phase 6 scramble.

Phase 7 - Compel, Supplement, and Build the Trial Record

[ ] Meet and confer in good faith and document every step before filing any motion to compel. The requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f) is enforced, and the Board will deny a motion that skips it.
[ ] File any motion to compel before the moving party's pretrial-disclosure deadline for its first testimony period. Miss that window and the motion is untimely.
[ ] Understand the suspension mechanics: filing a motion to compel, a motion to test the sufficiency of admissions, or a motion for a protective order generally suspends the proceeding as to matters not germane to the motion - but it does not toll outstanding response deadlines. Keep responding while the motion is pending.
[ ] Serve something timely - even objections - to any set of discovery you cannot fully answer. A party that serves nothing, then loses a motion to compel, may forfeit its objections on the merits.
[ ] Honor the continuing duty to supplement under Rule 26(e). Review your responses before the close of fact discovery and again before trial, and correct anything that has become incomplete or incorrect.
[ ] Map each intended DuPont factor to specific evidence, and plan to introduce that evidence at trial through testimony and notice of reliance.

WHY / traps. The forfeiture-of-objections rule is the sleeper trap of this phase. Objections are not self-preserving if you default entirely. Serve a timely response - even a bare set of objections with a reservation of rights - so that if the Board later grants a motion to compel, you are litigating the merits of your objections rather than having waived them by silence. The privilege dimension travels with this: an assertion of privilege must be logged, and the log has to be good enough to let the other side (and the Board) test the claim. The discipline for that is in Building a Privilege Log: A Practical Checklist.

The deeper point of this phase is the one that reframes the entire proceeding. Because there is no live cross-examination of the opposing party in front of the fact-finder, the admissions and documents you obtain in discovery are the evidentiary record. The trial is largely a matter of packaging what discovery produced and offering it under the notice-of-reliance and testimony rules. That is why the disciplined party treats discovery not as pretrial housekeeping but as the trial itself, conducted in slow motion and in writing.

Worked example - the motion to compel that had to be documented. An opposer serves interrogatories; the applicant answers three and objects wholesale to the rest as "overbroad and unduly burdensome," producing nothing further. The opposer's instinct is to file a motion to compel immediately. Instead, counsel sends a detailed meet-and-confer letter identifying each deficient answer, proposing narrowing compromises, and requesting a telephonic conference; documents the applicant's non-response; and only then moves to compel, attaching the correspondence as exhibits. The Board, seeing a genuine good-faith effort, reaches the merits and orders supplemental answers. Had the opposer skipped the conference, the motion would have been denied on that ground alone, and the discovery period might have closed before a second attempt could cure the defect.

From Discovery to the Paper Trial: Closing the Loop

Discovery is not an end in itself before the Board; it is the raw material of a record you will assemble during the testimony periods. Three closing disciplines connect the two.

Notice of reliance is the workhorse. Much of your documentary evidence - printed publications, official records, an adverse party's discovery deposition, interrogatory answers you choose to rely on, and admissions - comes in by notice of reliance under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122. Plan during discovery for how each key document will be introduced, and make sure it qualifies. A document you cannot get in is a document you did not need to fight for.

Testimony comes in on your schedule, in writing. Your own witnesses testify by declaration or testimony deposition during your assigned period, subject to the other side's right to cross-examine. This is where the facts you developed in discovery become affirmative proof. Build the testimony to track the DuPont factors and the pleaded grounds, and tie each assertion to a document or admission already in hand.

ACR can collapse the whole back end. If the parties stipulated to Accelerated Case Resolution at the conference, the case may be decided on a summary-judgment-style record without the full testimony sequence - a substantial saving of time and cost that is available precisely because the Board's fact-finding is documentary to begin with.

The through-line is simple to state and hard to live by: in a Board proceeding, the party that wins is usually the party that treated discovery as the place where the case was proved.

Common Mistakes: A Quick-Reference Audit

Treating the discovery conference and initial disclosures as formalities - and thereby forfeiting the right to compel or getting evidence precluded under Rule 37(c)(1).
Drafting an over-limit set of RFPs or RFAs on the obsolete assumption that they are unlimited.
Missing the 31-day-before-close service rule and serving discovery too late to compel a response.
Writing "all documents relating to . . ." requests that draw overbreadth objections instead of using tight definitions.
Blowing an RFA deadline and suffering automatic deemed admissions under Rule 36.
Confusing the discovery deposition with the testimony deposition, and arriving at trial with a transcript you cannot use.
Filing a motion to compel without a documented, good-faith meet-and-confer.
Serving nothing at all in response to discovery and forfeiting objections after losing a motion to compel.
Building expansive ESI demands a registrability-only case cannot justify.
Treating survey design as a late-stage task and running out of time to field a defensible study.
Over-designating documents "Attorneys' Eyes Only" and losing credibility with the Board.
Forgetting that non-party discovery requires a district-court subpoena the Board cannot issue.

A Model Discovery Timeline

The following hypothetical illustrates how the dates cascade in a routine opposition. Adjust every number to your actual institution order; this is a mental model, not a calendar you can copy.

Day 0 - Answer filed; institution order sets the schedule.
By roughly Day 30 - Discovery conference held (Rule 26(f); § 2.120(a)); Board participation requested at least 10 days earlier if wanted.
Day 30 - Discovery opens.
By Day 60 - Initial disclosures served (no later than 30 days after discovery opens); remember you cannot seek discovery before serving yours.
Days 60-120 - First wave of written discovery: interrogatories and RFPs served together; responses due in 30 days; contention interrogatories held for later.
Days 120-160 - Review production; serve targeted RFAs (calendar the 30-day deemed-admission deadline in triplicate); begin the clearance-file and confusion analysis.
Before the close - Depositions noticed and completed within the period; expert disclosures made before the close; survey report finalized.
31 days before close - Absolute last day to serve interrogatories, RFPs, or RFAs so responses fall due in time.
Day ~210 - Discovery closes.
After close, before first pretrial-disclosure deadline - Any motion to compel filed; unresolved deficiencies pressed.
Testimony periods - Evidence introduced by testimony and notice of reliance; DuPont factors mapped to specific proof.

Primary Authority

Trademark Rules (37 C.F.R. Part 2). § 2.116 (applicability of the Federal Rules and the standard protective order at (g)); § 2.119 (service, email default); § 2.120 (discovery, conference, disclosures, motions to compel, and the 75-request caps); § 2.121 (assignment of testimony periods); §§ 2.122-2.123 (notice of reliance and trial testimony); § 2.196 (computing time).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rules 26(b)(1) (scope and proportionality), 26(e) (duty to supplement), 26(f) (discovery conference), 30 and 30(b)(6) (depositions), 31 (deposition on written questions), 33 (interrogatories), 34 (production), 36 (admissions and the deemed-admitted rule), 37(a) (motions to compel), 37(c)(1) (preclusion of undisclosed evidence), and 45 (non-party subpoenas). See also Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) (clawback / non-waiver orders) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) (privilege claims and logs).

TBMP. Chapter 400 (disclosures and discovery), including §§ 401-414, 405.03(d) (counting discrete subparts), and 407.05 (authentication); Chapter 500 (motions), including §§ 523-524 (motions to compel and to test sufficiency) and 527 (sanctions); §§ 528.05(a)(2) and 702.04 (Accelerated Case Resolution).

Cases. Estudi Moline Dissey, S.L. v. BioUrn Inc., 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1268 (T.T.A.B. 2017) (the 31-day-before-close service requirement); Domond v. 37.37, Inc., 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1264 (T.T.A.B. 2015); Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1904 (T.T.A.B. 2011). On the framework the discovery serves, In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (the DuPont likelihood-of-confusion factors). On the foundational purpose of civil discovery generally, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

Statutes and rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063 (opposition), 1064 (cancellation), 1067 (composition and authority of the Board), and 1071 (review). The current caps and email-service defaults derive from the Board's 2017 rule amendments (final rule published at 81 Fed. Reg. 69,950 (Oct. 7, 2016), effective January 14, 2017).

Systems. ESTTA (electronic filing) and TTABVUE (public docket) at the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Stated as amended through the 2017 Board rules. Verify the current 37 C.F.R. Part 2 and the current edition of the TBMP before relying on any limit or deadline; the Board periodically revises both.

Related UpLaw Resources

Related Checklists

Related Guides and Articles

Related Toolkits

This checklist is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Discovery before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is governed by the Trademark Rules of Practice and the TBMP and turns on the specific facts and current deadlines of your proceeding. Confirm every limit and date against the governing rules and your institution order, and consult qualified trademark counsel.