519    Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories

37 CFR § 2.120(d)(1) . The total number of written interrogatories which a party may serve upon another party pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a proceeding, shall not exceed seventy-five, counting subparts, except that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in its discretion, may allow additional interrogatories upon motion therefor showing good cause, or upon stipulation of the parties, approved by the Board. A motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories must be filed and granted prior to the service of the proposed additional interrogatories and must be accompanied by a copy of the interrogatories, if any, which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the interrogatories proposed to be served. ...

A motion under 37 CFR § 2.120(d)(1)  for leave to serve additional interrogatories must be filed and granted prior to service of the proposed additional interrogatories, and must be accompanied both by a copy of any interrogatories which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the interrogatories proposed to be served. [ Note 1.]

Good cause for the service of additional interrogatories will generally be found only where it is shown that there is a legitimate need for further discovery by interrogatories. [ Note 2.] The mere fact that the additional interrogatories may be relevant and narrowly drawn to a single issue, or that they may be easy to answer, is insufficient, in and of itself, to show good cause for the service of additional interrogatories. [ Note 3.] Given the Board’s limited jurisdiction and the generous number of interrogatories provided under the Rule, such motions for leave to serve additional interrogatories are disfavored.

For further information concerning good cause for a motion to serve additional interrogatories, see TBMP § 405.03(c). For information concerning the interrogatory limit specified in 37 CFR § 2.120(d)(1), see TBMP § 405.03.

NOTES:

 1.   37 CFR § 2.120(d)(1). See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1467 (TTAB 1990); Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc. v. Circle Consulting Group Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1398, 1398 (TTAB 1990); Chicago Corp. v. North American Chicago Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1479, 1480 (TTAB 1990); Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990); NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING, 56 Fed. Reg. 46376 (September 12, 1991), as corrected at 56 Fed. Reg. 54917 (October 23, 1991).

 2.   See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1466-67 & n.5 (TTAB 1990).

 3.   See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1466-67 & n.5 (TTAB 1990) (fact that interrogatories are relevant and narrowly drawn to a single issue does not in and of itself demonstrate good cause for additional interrogatories); Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc. v. Circle Consulting Group Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1398, 1399 (TTAB 1990) (fact that interrogatories are easy to answer does not in and of itself constitute good cause for additional interrogatories); Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990) (fact that the interrogatories are relevant to the proceeding does not in and of itself constitute good cause for additional interrogatories).