506.01    Nature of Motion

Upon motion, or upon its own initiative, the Board may order stricken from a pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. [ Note 1.] The Board also has the authority to strike an impermissible or insufficient claim or portion of a claim from a pleading. [ Note 2.]

Motions to strike are not favored, and matter will not be stricken unless it clearly has no bearing upon the issues in the case. [ Note 3.] The primary purpose of pleadings, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to give fair notice of the claims or defenses asserted. [ Note 4.] See TBMP § 309.03 (Substance of Complaint) and TBMP § 311.02 (Substance of Answer). Thus, the Board, in its discretion, may decline to strike even objectionable pleadings where their inclusion will not prejudice the adverse party, but rather will provide fuller notice of the basis for a claim or defense. [ Note 5.] A defense will not be stricken as insufficient if the insufficiency is not clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be determined on the merits. [ Note 6.]

Nevertheless, the Board grants motions to strike in appropriate cases. [ Note 7.]

NOTES:

 1.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); See Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1753 n.6 (TTAB 2013), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.) (insofar as during briefing of petitioner'’s motion for summary judgment, respondent stated that it took no issue with the striking of respondent’s affirmative defenses, the Board struck these defenses); Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (TTAB 1999); Internet Inc. v. Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 38 USPQ2d 1435, 1438 (TTAB 1996) (on its own initiative, the Board struck paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the notice of opposition).

 2.   Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1293 (TTAB 1999) (motion to strike certain allegations in the counterclaim); Western Worldwide Enterprises Group Inc. v. Qinqdao Brewery, 17 USPQ2d 1137, 1139 (TTAB 1990) (motion to strike allegations of geographic descriptiveness asserted against registration over five years old granted).

 3.   Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (TTAB 1999); Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1571 (TTAB 1988); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. William G. Pendill Marketing Co., 177 USPQ 401, 402 (TTAB 1973); 5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Civil 3d § 1380 (2014).

 4.   Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (TTAB 1999); Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1571 (TTAB 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. National Data Corp., 228 USPQ 45, 47 (TTAB 1985).

 5.   Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (TTAB 1999); Order of Sons of Italy in America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995) (amplification of applicant’s denial of opposer’s claims); Textron, Inc. v. Gillette Co., 180 USPQ 152, 153 (TTAB 1973) (applicant’s affirmative defense amplifies denial of likelihood of confusion); Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1571 (TTAB 1988) (reasonable latitude permitted in statement of claims).

 6.   5C C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Civil 3d § 1381 (2014).

 7.   Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1292, 1295 n.16 (TTAB 1999) (estoppel may not be asserted as a defense against claims of mere descriptiveness or geographic descriptiveness; laches may not be maintained against fraud); Order of Sons of Italy in America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995) (defense stricken as redundant, that is, as nothing more than a restatement of a denial in the answer and does not add anything to that denial); American VitaminProducts, Inc. v. Dow Brands Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1313, 1314 (TTAB 1992) (insufficient affirmative defenses stricken); Western Worldwide Enterprises Group Inc. v. Qinqdao Brewery, 17 USPQ2d 1137, 1139 (TTAB 1990) (ground for cancellation not available for registration over five years old); Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1571-72 (TTAB 1988) (immaterial allegation stricken); Continental Gummi-Werke AG v. Continental Seal Corp., 222 USPQ 822, 825 (TTAB 1984) (affirmative defense stricken because identical to counterclaim); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Arizona Feeds, 195 USPQ 670, 671 (Comm’r 1977) (affirmative defenses stricken as redundant because same allegations formed basis for counterclaim ); Isle of Aloe, Inc. v. Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc., 180 USPQ 794, 794 (TTAB 1974) (complaint stricken for failure to comply with requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) that each numbered paragraph be limited to a single set of circumstances).