104 Business to be Conducted in Writing
37 CFR § 2.191 All business with the Office should be transacted in writing. The personal appearance of applicants or their representatives at the Office is unnecessary. The action of the Office will be based exclusively on the written record. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
With the exceptions of discovery conferences with Board participation, see TBMP § 401.01, telephone conferences, see TBMP § 413 .01 and TBMP § 502.06, all business with the Board should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of parties or their attorneys or other authorized representatives at the offices of the Board is unnecessary, except in the case of a pretrial conference as provided in 37 CFR § 2.120(i)(2), or upon oral argument at final hearing, if a party so desires, as provided in 37 CFR § 2.129. Decisions of the Board will be based exclusively on the written record before it. [ Note 1.]
Board proceedings are conducted in English. If a party intends to rely upon any documents that are in a language other than English, the party should also submit a certified translation of the documents. If a translation is not submitted, the documents may not be considered. [ Note 2.]
NOTES:
1. Cf. In re Sovran Fin. Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1537, 1538 (Comm’r 1992) (regarding actions taken by examining attorneys); In re Merck & Co., 24 USPQ2d 1317, 1318 n.2 (Comm’r 1992) (regarding oral representation by Board employee); In re Investigacion Y Desarrollo de Cosmeticos S.A., 19 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Comm’r 1991).
2. See, e.g., Swiss Watch International Inc. v. Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, 101 USPQ2d 1731, 1734 n.8 (TTAB 2012) (noting that printed publications submitted in a foreign language without translations are of limited probative value); Johnson & Johnson v. Obschestvo s ogranitchennoy; otvetstvennostiu "WDS", 95 USPQ2d 1567, 1570 n.3 (TTAB 2010) (noting that if a party intends to rely at trial on business records in a foreign language, it must provide a translation); Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 (TTAB 1998) (noting that a proffered excerpt from a newspaper or periodical is lacking in foundation and, thus, is not admissible as evidence to the extent that it is unintelligible because it is in a language other than English).