507.02(b)    Timing of Motion to Amend to Add Counterclaim

The timing of a motion for leave to amend is particularly important in the case of a motion for leave to amend to assert a counterclaim for cancellation of one or more of the plaintiff’s pleaded registrations. Counterclaims to cancel pleaded registrations in Board proceedings are governed by 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2)(i)  and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2)(i). [ Note 1.] As provided therein, if grounds for the counterclaim are known to the defendant when its answer to the complaint is filed, the counterclaim should be pleaded with or as part of the answer. If, during the proceeding, the defendant learns of grounds for a counterclaim to cancel a registration pleaded by the plaintiff, the counterclaim should be pleaded promptly after the grounds therefor are learned. [ Note 2.] TBMP § 313.04 (Compulsory Counterclaims).

NOTES:

 1.   37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2)(i)  and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2)(i); TBC Corp. v. Grand Prix Ltd., 12 USPQ2d 1311, 1313 (TTAB 1989) (although parties referred to the "when justice requires" element of Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(f), counterclaims to cancel pleaded registrations in oppositions are governed by 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2)(i)). Cf. See’s Candy Shops Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 12 USPQ2d 1395, 1397 (TTAB 1989) (applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(f) "when justice requires" standard where grounds for counterclaim were known at time of answer). Please Note: Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(f) was abrogated in 2009.

 2.   37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2)(i)  and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2)(i); Vitaline Corp. v. General Mills Inc., 891 F.2d 273, 13 USPQ2d 1172, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (asserting claim as separate petition to cancel rather than counterclaim does not obviate timeliness requirements of 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2)(i)); Zanella Ltd. v. Nordstrom Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1758, 1759 (TTAB 2008); Turbo Sportswear Inc. v. Marmot Mountain Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB 2005) ("we must determine whether applicant knew of the grounds at the time it filed its answers and, if not, whether applicant filed its counterclaims promptly upon learning of those grounds"); Capital Speakers Inc. v. Capital Speakers Club of Washington D.C. Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1030, 1033 (TTAB 1996); Libertyville Saddle Shop Inc. v. E. Jeffries & Sons Ltd., 22 USPQ2d 1594, 1596 (TTAB 1992) (filing of an answer is not a condition precedent to operation of 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2)(i) where grounds are learned during course of proceeding), summary judgment granted, 24 USPQ2d 1376 (TTAB 1992); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field’s Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355, 1359 (TTAB 1989) (counterclaim was pleaded promptly after defendant obtained information through discovery concerning possible fraud).