704.12(a) Kind of Fact That May be Judicially Noticed
The only kind of fact that may be judicially noticed by the Board is a fact that is "not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." [ Note 1.]
For examples of decisions concerning whether particular facts are appropriate subject matter for judicial notice by the Board, see cases cited in the note below. [ Note 2.] See also TBMP § 1208.04 for additional cases.
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385, 1393 n.5 (TTAB 1999). See, e.g., Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank, 842 F.2d 1270, 6 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 (TTAB 1999); Omega SA v. Compucorp, 229 USPQ 191, 194 (TTAB 1985); United States National Bank of Oregon v. Midwest Savings and Loan Association, 194 USPQ 232, 235 (TTAB 1977).
Please Note: The Federal Circuit, in In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2010), exercised its discretion to take judicial notice of a third party’s registrations. Although the court took judicial notice of a third-party registration in that case, the Board does not take judicial notice of either third-party registrations or a party’s own registration[s] insofar as the Trademark Rules of Practice specify how to make such registrations of record in an inter partes proceeding. See 37 CFR § 2.122(d) and 37 CFR § 2.122(e).
2. Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080, 1098 n.114 (TTAB 2014) (census data – yes), on appeal, No. 1:14-cv-01043 (E.D. Va.); UMG Recordings Inc. v. Matte, Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1868, 1874, 1879 n.12 (TTAB 2011) (dictionary definition - yes; web pages from websites - no); Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1934 n.61 (TTAB 2011) ( information from encyclopedias- yes), on appeal, No. 1:11-cv-01623-RC (D.D.C.); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1075 n.17 (TTAB 2011) (dictionary definitions- yes); Enbridge Inc. v. Excelerate Energy LP, 92 USPQ2d 1537, 1542 n.9 (TTAB 2009) (phrase with a possible industry specific-meaning and where the parties have not set forth and addressed a single, definable meaning - no); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Charles O’Rourke, 92 USPQ2d 1042, 1046 (TTAB 2009) (registration issuing from pleaded application after applicant’s trial brief had been filed, although copy of application was of record -- no); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1117 (TTAB 2009) (definitions from an online source which does not indicate it is the electronic version of a printed reference work but are consistent with definitions in "a more traditional reference source" - yes); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1590 n.8 (TTAB 2008) (online reference works which exist in printed format or have regular fixed editions -- yes); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1723 (TTAB 2008) (items of outerwear and undergarments are related - no); L.C. Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (TTAB 2008) (the licensing of commercial trademarks on "collateral products" has become a part of everyday life - yes); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1110 (TTAB 2007) (third-party registrations mentioned in trial brief - no); Nike Inc. v. WNBA Enterprises LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1187, 1192 n.9 (TTAB 2007) (current status of registration owned by party properly made of record, when status of registration changed between time made of record and time case decided - yes; Office assignment records reflecting current ownership - yes); Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1485 (TTAB 2007) (number of applications and registrations in applicant's name - no); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378, 1379 n.7 (TTAB 2006) (dictionary definitions – yes; "scholarly reviews" of an essay at several websites - no); Motion Picture Association of America Inc. v. Respect Sportswear Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1555, 1558 (TTAB 2007) (results from Internet search engines and from eBay website - no); Standard Knitting Ltd. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 77 USPQ2d 1917, 1931 n.26 (TTAB 2006) (third-party website materials - no); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (dictionary definition of term as trademark - yes, indicates mark is reasonably famous; also, encyclopedias may be consulted); Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 192 USPQ 158 (TTAB 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977) (home cold permanent wave kits have for many years been sold directly to nonprofessional consumers through retail outlets - yes); Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1600, 1605 (TTAB 1999) (statements regarding race relations pleaded in the complaint - no); In re Wada, 48 USPQ2d 1689, 1689 n.2 (TTAB 1998) (there are thousands of registered marks incorporating the term NEW YORK for goods and services that do not originate there - no) aff'd 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999); University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982) (dictionary definitions - yes), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re CyberFinancial.Net Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1789, 1791 n.3 (TTAB 2002) (online dictionary definition where resource was also available in book form - yes); In re Broyhill Furniture Industries Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 n.4 (TTAB 2001) (dictionary entries and other standard reference works -- yes); In re 3Com Corp., 56 USPQ2d 1060, 1061 n.3 (TTAB 2000) (dictionary definitions and technical reference works, e.g., computer dictionary - yes); Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385, 1393 (TTAB 1999) (dictionary definitions judicially noticed although not made of record by either party); In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999) (on-line dictionaries which otherwise do not exist in printed format - no); In re Astra Merck Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1216, 1219 (TTAB 1998) ("Physicians’ Desk Reference" - yes); In re U.S. Cargo Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1702, 1704 (TTAB 1998) ("U.S." means the United States, which is a geographic area with defined boundaries - yes); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542, 1542 n.2 (TTAB 1998) (third-party registrations - no); Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. v. Sandra Inc., 11 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.6 (TTAB 1989) (Catonsville, Maryland is located between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C. - yes); Los Angeles Bonaventure Co. v. Bonaventure Associates, 4 USPQ2d 1882, 1884 (TTAB 1987) (whether other companies have expanded from restaurant services to hotel services under a single mark, and, if so, when - no); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1293 (TTAB 1986) (files of applications and/or registrations, where no copies thereof are filed, and where they are not the subject of the proceeding - no); Omega SA v. Compucorp, 229 USPQ 191, 192 n.6 (TTAB 1985) (presumptions concerning the significance in trade of certain terms - no); Hertz System, Inc. v. A-Drive Corp., 222 USPQ 625, 630 n.14 (TTAB 1984) (the numeral "1" is widely used to indicate superiority - yes); Hamilton Burr Publishing Co. v. E.W. Communications, Inc., 216 USPQ 802, 804 n.5 (TTAB 1982) (probation report -- no); Abbott Laboratories v. Tac Industries, Inc., 217 USPQ 819, 823 (TTAB 1981) (use of antimicrobial agents in the floor covering industry - no); Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. v. American Can Co., 212 USPQ 852, 860 n.7 (TTAB 1981) (dictionary definitions - yes); Sprague Electric Co. v. Electrical Utilities Co., 209 USPQ 88, 95 n.3 (TTAB 1980) (standard reference works - yes); Cities Service Co. v. WMF of America, Inc., 199 USPQ 493, 495 (TTAB 1978) (third-party registrations and listings in trade directories, where no copies thereof are submitted - no); Plus Products v. Sterling Food Co., 188 USPQ 586, 589 (TTAB 1975) (food supplements and fortifiers are commonly used in producing bakery products - yes); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Texize Chemicals, Inc., 168 USPQ 670, 671 (TTAB 1971) (operations of opposer and applicant - no).