528.05 Summary Judgment Evidence
528.05(a)
528.05(a)(1) In General
The types of evidence that may be submitted in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment include "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," affidavits or declarations, and other materials in the record. [ Note 1.]
The evidentiary record upon summary judgment in an inter partes proceeding before the Board also includes, without action by any party, the pleadings, the file of any application or registration that is the subject of the proceeding as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b) [ Note 2.] and a copy of any registration pleaded and made of record by the plaintiff with its complaint, in the manner prescribed in 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(1). In addition, a party may make of record, for purposes of summary judgment; copies of other registrations; disclosure materials; documents or things produced in response to a request for production; official records, if competent evidence and relevant to an issue; printed publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment of the public that is relevant under an issue, if the publication is competent evidence and relevant to an issue; and testimony from other proceedings, so far as relevant and material. [ Note 3.] Additionally, a party may make of record documents obtained during settlement negotiations so long as those documents are otherwise discoverable. [ Note 4.] A party need not submit these materials under a notice of reliance in order to make them of record for purposes of a summary judgment motion. Rather, the materials may be submitted as attachments or exhibits to a party’s brief or affidavit in support of the motion. Cf. TBMP § 700.
In addition, the Board may grant a party’s request or otherwise exercise its discretion to take judicial notice of appropriate dictionary definitions, translations, and other facts that are germane to a summary judgment motion. [ Note 5.] See TBMP § 704.12. The parties further may bring to the attention of the Board supplemental legal authority issuing after briefing of the summary judgment motion, e.g., a precedential decision from the Federal Circuit or Board that is relevant to the issues under consideration, along with a brief description of its significance. [ Note 6.] However, such a submission may not be used as a subterfuge to avoid the prohibition on filing surreplies or further briefing of such motions.
In a Board proceeding, the only evidentiary materials likely to be already of record when a motion for summary judgment is filed are the pleadings, the file of any application or registration that is the subject matter of the proceeding [ Note 7.], and any registration pleaded and made of record by the plaintiff with its complaint. Any other evidence that a party wishes to have considered upon summary judgment must usually be submitted in connection with the summary judgment motion. [ Note 8.]
Because it is not the practice of the Board to make evidentiary rulings prior to briefing and determination of summary judgment motions, the Board will not entertain a motion in limine to preclude a party from presenting certain types or categories of evidence at summary judgment or, for that matter, at trial. [ Note 9.] See TBMP § 527.01(f). Objections to evidence may be made in a party’s responsive brief, if one is permitted. [ Note 10.]
Evidence submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily of record only for purposes of that motion. If the case goes to trial, the summary judgment evidence may not form part of the evidentiary record to be considered at final hearing unless it is properly introduced in evidence during the appropriate testimony period. [ Note 11.] However, the parties may stipulate that any or all of the summary judgment evidence be treated as properly of record for purposes of final decision. [ Note 12.] Moreover, the parties may, if they so desire, stipulate that the summary judgment motion and evidence be treated as the final record and briefs in the case. [ Note 13.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2).
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
2. See The Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1628 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the entire file of a subject registration, including any evidence made of record during prosecution of the underlying application, is part of the record in a cancellation proceeding without any action of the parties). See also Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477, 1507 n.221 (TTAB 2017) (entire opposed application file is automatically part of the record in an opposition proceeding), appeal dismissed, No. 1:17-CV-00345 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2017); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1070 (TTAB 2010) (record includes pleadings and file of the opposed application).
3. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(f), and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(2). See also Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ 1368, 1369-70 (TTAB 1998) (party may rely on documents admissible under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)).
4. See Bad Boys Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Yowell, 115 USPQ2d 1925, 1930-31 (TTAB 2015) (Fed. R. Evid. 408(a) does not preclude use of documents because they are provided during the course of compromise negotiations if the evidence is otherwise discoverable).
5. See generally University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Enbridge Inc. v. Excelerate Energy LP, 92 USPQ2d 1537, 1542 (TTAB 2009); Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1515 (TTAB 2009).
6. See Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) v. Alpha Phi Omega, 118 USPQ2d 1289, 1291 n.2 (TTAB 2016) (party may bring supplemental legal authority to the attention of the Board after briefing of a summary judgment motion).
7. See The Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1628 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the entire file of a subject registration, including any evidence made of record during prosecution of the underlying application, is part of the record in a cancellation proceeding without any action of the parties).
8. See Kellogg Co. v. Pack’Em Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545, 1549 n.9 (TTAB 1990), aff’d, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
9. See Greenhouse Systems Inc. v. Carson, 37 USPQ2d 1748, 1750 (TTAB 1995).
10. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) Committee Notes on Rules - 2010 amendment ("Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a party may object that material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. … There is no need to make a separate motion to strike.").
11. See Zoba International Corp. v. DVD Format/LOGO Licensing Corp., 98 USPQ2d 1106, 1115 n.10 (TTAB 2011) (evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is of record only for consideration of such motion); Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Hugunin, 88 USPQ2d 1957, 1960 n.7 (TTAB 2008); University Games Corp. v. 20Q.net Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 n.4 (TTAB 2008); Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (TTAB 1998); Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1464, 1465 n.2 (TTAB 1993), recon. denied, 36 USPQ2d 1328 (TTAB 1994) (declaration of witness submitted in connection with summary judgment motion was part of record for trial where witness identified and attested to accuracy of it during applicant’s testimony period); Pet Inc. v. Bassetti, 219 USPQ 911, 913 n.4 (TTAB 1983) (affidavit offered with response to motion for summary judgment became part of trial record when witness identified it during testimony deposition and adverse counsel cross-examined witness about statements in the affidavit); American Meat Institute v. Horace W. Longacre, Inc., 211 USPQ 712, 716 n.2 (TTAB 1981) (material in support of untimely summary judgment motion not trial evidence absent agreement of parties).
12. See, e.g., Frito-Lay N. America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949, 1951 (TTAB 2014) (parties stipulated that they could rely at trial on materials submitted in support of and against each party’s motion for summary judgment), vacated on other grounds, 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial pursuant to Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)); Micro Motion Inc. v. Danfoss A/S, 49 USPQ2d 1628, 1629 n.2 (TTAB 1998) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial).
13. See, e.g., Freeman v. National Association of Realtors, 64 USPQ2d 1700, 1701 (TTAB 2002); Miller Brewing Co. v. Coy International Corp., 230 USPQ 675, 676 (TTAB 1986).
528.05(a)(2) Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)
Parties to Board inter partes proceedings may stipulate to pretrial final disposition on the merits (as well as abbreviated trial on the merits, see TBMP § 702) of inter partes cases via Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR). [ Note 1.] In that regard, ACR expands upon earlier Board practice allowing parties to stipulate that their summary judgment motions and accompanying evidence be treated as the final record and briefs in a case. [ Note 2.] ACR is available in all cases.
Parties requesting ACR may stipulate to a variety of matters to accelerate disposition of the proceeding, including permitting the Board to resolve issues of fact at summary judgment and to treat the parties’ summary judgment motion papers and evidence as the final record and briefs on the merits of the case. In addition, parties may stipulate to the following: abbreviating the length of the discovery, testimony, and briefing periods as well as the time between them; limiting the number or types of discovery requests or the subject matter thereof; limiting the subject matter for testimony, or limiting the number of witnesses, or streamlining the method of introduction of evidence, for example, by stipulating to facts and introduction of evidence by affidavit or declaration without cross-examination. [ Note 3.]
To optimize ACR efficiencies and streamline the case at final decision, parties should avoid excessive evidentiary objections and those contrary to the parties’ stipulations as well as avoid submission of excessive documentary evidence. [ Note 4.]
Unlike summary judgment decisions, which are interlocutory in nature, the Board’s decision in a proceeding utilizing ACR is final, and thus, is judicially reviewable as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 2.145. [ Note 5.] See TBMP § 528.01 and TBMP § 901.
Parties may stipulate to ACR at any time during the pretrial phase of the proceeding. Thus, parties that have been in contact prior to commencement of an opposition or cancellation may stipulate to ACR as early as the filing and service of their pleadings. Parties that have not been in prior contact may stipulate to ACR during their discovery conference, or at any time prior to the opening of testimony. Thereafter, parties still may agree to abbreviating trial and briefing schedules, limiting the types and methods of introduction of evidence, and stipulating to facts. [ Note 6.] Oral hearings are available in ACR cases in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.129(a). See TBMP § 802.
Parties may stipulate to ACR by informing the Board attorney assigned to their case during a telephone conference or by filing a stipulation. In any event, parties must either alert the assigned attorney by telephone that the parties are seeking ACR, in which case the attorney will issue an order outlining the parties’ agreement, or submit a stipulation in writing memorializing and outlining their agreement. [ Note 7.] Failure to do so may result in delays in implementing ACR and the disposition of the proceeding.
Although ACR generally will be available to any parties seeking to avail themselves of accelerated resolution of their proceedings, the ultimate decision as to whether the parties may proceed by means of ACR lies with the discretion of the Board. In most cases it is anticipated that decisions on ACR cases will be rendered within fifty days of the scheduled due date of a reply brief or hearing. [ Note 8.]
What follows in TBMP § 528.05(b) through TBMP § 528.05(f) is a more detailed discussion of some of the types of evidence that may be submitted in connection with a summary judgment motion, or a case in which the parties seek expedited determination under ACR.
For a further discussion regarding other ACR models, see TBMP § 702.04 and TBMP § 705.
NOTES:
1. See M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 78 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Board’s first, non-precedential, ACR decision in Opposition No. 91158118 affirmed by Federal Circuit). See also Weatherford/Lamb, Inc. v. C& J Energy Services, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1834, 1836 (TTAB 2010) (parties stipulated to ACR after filing cross motions for summary judgment); Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial pursuant to ACR). See also Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1051 (TTAB 2016) ("In order to take advantage of any form of ACR, the parties must stipulate that the Board may resolve any genuine disputes of material fact in the context of something less than a full trial.").
2. See, e.g., Conolty v. Conolty O’Connor NYC LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1302, 1304 (TTAB 2014) (parties agreed to try case using cross-motions for summary judgment ACR model); Chanel, Inc. v. Makarczyk, 110 USPQ2d 2013, 2016 (TTAB 2014); Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949 (TTAB 2014) (after suggestion by Board in order denying motion for summary judgment, parties stipulated to forego trial and rely on evidence submitted in support of the motions for summary judgment, supplemented by expert declarations, trial briefs and an oral hearing), vacated on other grounds, 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Lebanon Seaboard Corp. v. R&R Turf Supply Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1826, 1827-28, 1830 (TTAB 2012) (parties may stipulate that their cross motions for summary judgment be the ACR record); Freeman v. National Association of Realtors, 64 USPQ2d 1700, 1701 (TTAB 2002); Miller Brewing Co. v. Coy International Corp., 230 USPQ 675, 676 (TTAB 1986). See also Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1501 (TTAB 2016).
3. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(2)(iv) ("The parties may stipulate to a shortening of the discovery period."); Fiserv, Inc. v. Electronic Transaction Systems Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1913 (TTAB 2015) (parties filed ACR stipulation, agreed to forego discovery, waived disclosures, stipulated to facts and attached documents, filed briefs with additional evidence); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1738 (2014) (parties filed joint stipulation that testimony could be submitted by declaration or affidavit subject to cross-examination upon request, and all documents produced in response to a request for production of documents were deemed authentic business records and were admissible subject to any objections other than authenticity); Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1653 (TTAB 2014) (parties’ stipulation under ACR provided limitations on discovery, excluded the filing of motions for summary judgment and the use of expert testimony, streamlined the methods for introduction of evidence during trial, stipulated to fact regarding no actual confusion), on appeal, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn.); Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1182, 1186 (TTAB 2014) (stipulation to the admission and use of produced documents and waiver of objections based on authenticity or hearsay); Edom Laboratories Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1547 (TTAB 2012) (parties filed a joint stipulation of undisputed facts and a stipulation to seek a determination through ACR); Brooks v. Creative Arts by Calloway LLC, 93 USPQ2d 1823, 1825-26 (TTAB 2009) (parties stipulated to 14 paragraphs of facts, submission of testimony of certain witnesses in declaration form, and that sole issue to be decided at final was priority), aff’d on other grounds, Creative Arts by Calloway LLC v. Brooks, 09-cv-10488 (S.D.N.Y. December 27, 2012), dismissed, No. 13-147 (unpublished) (2d Cir. March 7, 2013); Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet, Inc. 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial pursuant to Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)); Target Brands, Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1678 (TTAB 2007) (parties stipulated to 13 paragraphs of facts). See also Micro Motion Inc. v. Danfoss A/S, 49 USPQ2d 1628, 1629 n.2 (TTAB 1998) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial).
4. See Fiserv, Inc. v. Electronic Transaction Systems Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1913, 1916, (TTAB 2015) (parties utilized ACR process and submitted clean and concise record); Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1653 n.3 (TTAB 2014) (ACR proceeding experienced delay in issuing decision due to the number and nature of objections and precedential nature of decision), on appeal, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn.); UMG Recordings Inc. v. Mattel Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1868, 1873-75 (TTAB 2011) (efficiencies of parties’ stipulations as to evidentiary record defeated by submission of excessive records, more than necessary to establish party’s position; although parties stipulated to testimony by declaration to streamline proceeding, numerous objections to evidence subverted the parties’ stipulations).
5. Cf. Copelands’ Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 887 F.2d 1065, 12 USPQ2d 1562, 1564-65 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Herbaceuticals, Inc. v. Xel Herbaceuticals, Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1572, 1579 n.6 (TTAB 2008).
6. See Target Brands, Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1678 (TTAB 2007).
7. See Lebanon Seaboard Corp. v. R&R Turf Supply Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1826, 1829-30 n.9 (TTAB 2012) (although the parties crafted and proceeded with their own ACR approach, better practice is to contact the assigned Board attorney when the parties elect to pursue ACR); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Chaveriat, 87 USPQ2d 1767, 1767 (TTAB 2008) (parties must inform Board by stipulation or motion any time they agree to modify their obligations under the rules regarding disclosure and discovery or deadlines involving disclosure, discovery, trial or briefing).
8. See Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1653 n.3 (TTAB 2014) (ACR proceeding experienced delay in issuing decision due to precedential nature of decision and the number and nature of objections), on appeal, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn.).
528.05(b) Affidavits and Accompanying Exhibits
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
Affidavits may be submitted in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for summary judgment provided that they (l) are made on personal knowledge; (2) set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence; and (3) show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. This is so even though affidavits are self-serving in nature, and even though there is no opportunity for cross-examination of the affiant. However, an adverse party may have an opportunity for direct examination of the affiant, if a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion to take the discovery deposition of the affiant is made and granted. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 528.06.
The Board may permit affidavits submitted in connection with a summary judgment motion to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. [ Note 2.]
Documents submitted with a summary judgment affidavit, but not identified therein, cannot be considered as exhibits to the affidavit. [ Note 3.] An affidavit that is not supported by documentary evidence may nevertheless be given consideration if the statements contained in the affidavit are clear and convincing in character, and uncontradicted. [ Note 4.]
In lieu of an affidavit, a party may submit a declaration meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 2.20. [ Note 5.]
Although submissions to the Board by external storage media or devices (e.g., CD-ROM, flash drives, etc.) are not permitted, (see TBMP § 106.03), exhibits to affidavits consisting of recordings of commercials, demonstrations, etc., may be transferred to an appropriate electronic format such as a DVD or CD for submission to the Board. See, e.g., TBMP § 703.01(i). Flash drives are not accepted because of the security risks to USPTO systems, including the potential for introduction of viruses and worms.
NOTES:
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). See also Sweats Fashions Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 4 USPQ2d 1793, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (moving party’s affidavit and other evidence were not contradicted by nonmoving party); Ava Ruha Corp. v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1575, 1578 (TTAB 2015) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) allows testimony from personal knowledge based on review of files and records or position with company, and Board may not consider portions of affidavit or declaration not based on personal knowledge); Paris Glove of Canada Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp., 84 USPQ2d 1856, 1864 n.8 (TTAB 2007) (self-serving declaration permissible on summary judgment despite absence of opportunity for cross-examination of declarant); Westrex Corp. v. New Sensor Corp., 83 USPQ2d 1215, 1217 (TTAB 2007) (declaration submitted with summary judgment motion clarifies discrepancies in discovery deposition); Corporate Document Services Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Management Inc., 48 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 1998) (use of standard language in declaration did not raise genuine issue as to personal knowledge); C & G Corp. v. Baron Homes, Inc., 183 USPQ 60, 60 (TTAB 1974) (affidavit is competent evidence); John T. Clark Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 176 USPQ 93, 94 (TTAB 1972) (affidavit was not made on personal knowledge and there was no foundation for statements made therein); 4U Co. of America, Inc. v. Naas Foods, Inc., 175 USPQ 251, 253 (TTAB 1972) (issue of credibility raised as to one affiant but statements by another affiant were competent and uncontradicted and suspicion alone is insufficient to invalidate).
2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Shalom Children’s Wear Inc. v. In-Wear A/S, 26 USPQ2d 1516, 1517 (TTAB 1993) (additional affidavit submitted with reply brief considered).
3. See Missouri Silver Pages Directory Publishing Corp. Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Media, Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1028, 1030 n.9 (TTAB 1988) (documents were related to information given in affidavit, but were not specifically identified therein).
4. See Hornblower & Weeks Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1733, 1736 (TTAB 2001) (opposer’s declaration, while not accompanied by any documentary evidence, was internally consistent, not characterized by uncertainty and was unchallenged by applicant); 4U Co. of America, Inc. v. Naas Foods, Inc., 175 USPQ 251, 253 (TTAB 1972) (fact that allegations in affidavit not supported by invoice does not undermine the testimony when uncontradicted). Cf., e. g., with respect to testimony depositions, Liqwacon Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 203 USPQ 305, 307 n.1 (TTAB 1979); GAF Corp. v. Anatox Analytical Services, Inc., 192 USPQ 576, 577 (TTAB 1976); Clubman’s Club Corp. v. Martin, 188 USPQ 455, 458 (TTAB 1975); Rite Aid Corp. v. Rite-Way Discount Corp., 182 USPQ 698, 702 n.5 (TTAB 1974), aff’d, 508 F.2d 828, 184 USPQ 351 (CCPA 1975).
5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). See 37 C.F.R. § 2.20. See also Taylor Brothers, Inc. v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 231 USPQ 412, 415 n.3 (TTAB 1986).
6. See Hunter Industries, Inc. v. Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651, 1654-55 (TTAB 2014) (parties may not override Trademark Rule 2.126 provisions for form of submissions by agreement; however, video and audio recordings of evidence such as commercials may be submitted on CD-ROM), on appeal, No. 14-CV-4463 (D. Minn.).
528.05(c) Discovery Responses and Disclosures
37 C.F.R. § 2.127(e)(2) For purposes of summary judgment only, the Board will consider any of the following, if a copy is provided with the party’s brief on the summary judgment motion: written disclosures or disclosed documents, a discovery deposition or any part thereof with any exhibit to the part that is filed, an interrogatory and answer thereto with any exhibit made part of the answer, a request for production and the documents or things produced in response thereto, or a request for admission and any exhibit thereto and the admission (or a statement that the party from which an admission was requested failed to respond thereto). If any motion for summary judgment is denied, the parties may stipulate that the materials submitted with briefs on the motion be considered at trial as trial evidence, which may be supplemented by additional evidence during trial.
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(8) Written disclosures or disclosed documents, requests for discovery, responses thereto, and materials or depositions obtained through the disclosure or discovery process should not be filed with the Board, except when submitted with a motion relating to disclosure or discovery, or in support of or in response to a motion for summary judgment, or under a notice of reliance, when permitted, during a party’s testimony period.
See also TBMP § 409. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k), governing the use of discovery responses as trial evidence, and TBMP § 704.09,TBMP § 704.11 regarding the introduction of depositions, interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admissions, and produced documents.
528.05(d) Registrations
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(1) A registration of the opposer or petitioner pleaded in an opposition or petition to cancel will be received in evidence and made part of the record if the opposition or petition is accompanied by an original or photocopy of the registration prepared and issued by the Office showing both the current status of and current title to the registration, or by a current copy of information from the electronic database records of the Office showing the current status and title of the registration. For the cost of a copy of a registration showing status and title, see § 2.6(b)(4).
If a plaintiff’s registration is pleaded and made of record pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(1), the registration is of record for all purposes, including a summary judgment motion.
Alternatively, a plaintiff may make its pleaded registration of record, for purposes of summary judgment only, by filing a status and title copy thereof, or a current printout of information from the USPTO electronic database records showing the status and title thereof, with its brief on the summary judgment motion. [ Note 1.] A registration owned by a defendant may be made of record in the same manner for purposes of summary judgment or Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), if consistent with the parties’ ACR stipulation. See TBMP § 528.05(a)(2). A copy printed from the USPTO’s TSDR or TESS database is sufficient for this purpose.
A party may make a third-party registration of record, for purposes of summary judgment only, by filing a copy thereof with its brief on the summary judgment motion; the copy need not be a certified copy, nor need it be a status and title copy. [ Note 2.] A copy printed from the USPTO’s TSDR or TESS database likewise is sufficient for this purpose.
For purposes of summary judgment only, a copy of a trademark search report, made of record as an exhibit to an affidavit, or as part of a discovery response, submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, may be sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the nature and extent of third-party use of a particular designation. [ Note 3.]
NOTES:
1. See Bongrain International (American) Corp. v. Moquet Ltd., 230 USPQ 626, 628 n.3 (TTAB 1986). Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(2).
2. See Interbank Card Association v. United States National Bank of Oregon, 197 USPQ 123, 124 n.6 (TTAB 1977) (third-party registrations may be plain copies). See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e); Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370 (TTAB 1998) (incomplete TRAM records of third-party registrations not sufficient).
3. See, e.g., Lloyd’s Food Products Inc. v. Eli’s Inc., 987 F.2d 766, 25 USPQ2d 2027, 2029 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (search reports and telephone directory listings sufficient to raise genuine issue regarding strength of mark). With respect to third-party applications, see also Interpayment Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1467-68 n.6 (TTAB 2003) (third-party applications which were published for opposition, submitted in response to motion for summary judgment, were considered by the Board, but failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact).
528.05(e) Printed Publications and Official Records
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records.
- (1) Printed publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment of the public which is relevant in a particular proceeding, and official records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the material being offered in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section. The notice of reliance shall specify the printed publication (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; and be accompanied by the official record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence.
- (2) Internet materials may be admitted into evidence under a notice of reliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, in the same manner as a printed publication in general circulation, so long as the date the internet materials were accessed and their source (e.g., URL) are provided.
Printed publications, as described in 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e), include such materials as books and periodicals, available to the general public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 704.08. The term "official records," as used in 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e), refers not to a party’s company business records, but rather to the records of public offices or agencies, or records kept in the performance of duty by a public officer. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 704.07.
Materials that qualify as printed publications or official records under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) are considered essentially self-authenticating, that is, the nonoffering party is readily able to verify the authenticity of the proffered materials. [ Note 3.] As such, these materials may be relied on for purposes of summary judgment without further evidence of authenticity. [ Note 4.] A party may introduce evidence of this nature in connection with a summary judgment motion, if the evidence is competent and relevant, by: specifying the official record or printed publication (including, with respect to the printed publication, information sufficient to identify the source and date of the publication) and the pages to be read; indicating generally the relevance of the material being offered; and including a copy of the proffered material with the party’s brief. [ Note 5.]
The material need not be submitted under a notice of reliance or in connection with the affidavit or declaration of a witness, and may simply be submitted as an attachment or exhibit to a party’s supporting brief.
Internet evidence. Materials obtained from the Internet that identify: (1) dates they were accessed; and (2) their source (e.g., the URL), are considered to be self-authenticating and may be admitted into evidence in the same manner as a printed publication in general circulation in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e). [ Note 6.] TBMP § 704.08(b). In all cases, printed publications are only admissible for what they show on their face, and not as proof of any facts asserted therein. [ Note 7.] See TBMP § 704.08.
Materials that are not self-authenticating. Materials that do not fall within 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e), that is, materials which are not self-authenticating in nature, may nonetheless be admissible as evidence in connection with a summary judgment motion, if competent and relevant, provided they are properly authenticated by an affidavit or declaration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). See TBMP § 528.05(b). Such materials may, on summary judgment, be introduced by the affidavit or declaration of a person who can clearly and properly authenticate and identify the materials, including identifying the nature, source and date of the materials. [ Note 8.]
For further information concerning official records and printed publications, including the probative value of such evidence, see TBMP § 704.07 and TBMP § 704.08. [ Note 9.]
NOTES:
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e). See also Paris Glove of Canada Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp., 84 USPQ2d 1856, 1857 (TTAB 2007).
2. See Brooks v. Creative Arts by Calloway LLC, 93 USPQ2d 1823, 1825-26 (TTAB 2009) (applicant’s own file copies of briefs from district court case not proper under notice of reliance as official records), aff’d on other grounds, Creative Arts by Calloway, LLC v. Brooks, 09-cv-10488 (SDNY December 27, 2012), dismissed, No. 13-147 (unpublished) (2d Cir. March 7, 2013).
3. See Weyerhaeuser v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1232 (TTAB 1992).
4. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e).
5. Cf. 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 an incomplete or illegible copy, is unintelligible because it is in a language other than English, or is not fully identified as to the name and date of the published source).
6. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a). See Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1039 (TTAB 2010). See also Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1071 (TTAB 2011) (documents obtained from Internet admitted even though witness did not personally obtain or download documents); Paris Glove of Canada Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp., 84 USPQ2d 1856, 1857 (TTAB 2007) (article from a trade magazine is admissible under 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) because, "[o]n its face, it identifies the publication and the date published").
Cf. International Association of Fire Chiefs v. H. Marvin Ginn Corp., 225 USPQ 940, 942 n.6 (TTAB 1985), rev’d on other grounds, 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (excerpts of printed articles from electronic database were admissible through notice of reliance because the materials "clearly identify the excerpted articles by their dates of publication and sources, all of which are readily available in published materials"). See also In re National Data Corp., 222 USPQ 515, 517 n.3 (TTAB 1984), rev’d on other grounds, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1085) (magazine articles obtained through search of electronic database admissible because they were clearly identified and therefore there was "no credibility problem"); In re Capital Formation Counselors, Inc., 219 USPQ 916, 918 n.3 (TTAB 1983) (printed articles from electronic database are clearly identified by name and date; therefore applicant could have easily checked the articles).
7. See Boyds Collection Ltd. v. Herrington & Co., 65 USPQ2d 2017, 2020 n.8 (TTAB 2008); Exxon Corp. v. Fill-R-Up Systems, Inc., 182 USPQ 443, 445 (TTAB 1974).
8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) and Fed r. Civ. P. P. 56(c)(4); Paris Glove of Canada Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp., 84 USPQ2d 1856, 1864 n.8 (TTAB 2007); Westrex Corp. v. New Sensor Corp., 83 USPQ 1215, 1217 (TTAB 2007). Please Note: The 2010 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) "eliminated the unequivocal requirement that documents submitted in support of a summary judgment motion must be authenticated." Akers v. Beal Bank, 845 F. Supp. 2d 238, 243 (D.D.C. 2012). The lack of authentication is now grounds for objection, but only on the basis that the evidence cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), Committee Notes on Rules - 2010 amendment ("The objection functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial setting. The burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is anticipated.").
9. See Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1039 (TTAB 2010) for a discussion of the probative weight given evidence obtained from the Internet.
528.05(f) Testimony from Another Proceeding
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(f) Testimony from other proceedings. By order of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, on motion, testimony taken in another proceeding, or testimony taken in a suit or action in a court, between the same parties or those in privity may be used in a proceeding, so far as relevant and material, subject, however, to the right of any adverse party to recall or demand the recall for examination or cross-examination of any witness whose prior testimony has been offered and to rebut the testimony.
Upon motion granted by the Board, testimony taken in another proceeding, or in a suit or action in a court, between the same parties or their privies, may be used in connection with a summary judgment motion in a pending Board proceeding, to the extent that the testimony is relevant and material. The use of such testimony, however, is subject "to the right of any adverse party to recall or demand the recall for examination or cross-examination of any witness whose prior testimony has been offered and to rebut the testimony." [ Note 1.] Any motion made to enter testimony from another proceeding should be accompanied by a copy of the testimony sought to be entered in the record together with clear arguments as to its relevance and materiality. Relevance and materiality frequently hinge upon the marks and goods or services involved in the two proceedings. See TBMP § 530.
When the Board allows testimony of this nature to be used in connection with a motion for summary judgment, the testimony, and any testimony taken upon recall of the same witness for examination or cross-examination, or in rebuttal thereof, is of record only for purposes of the motion for summary judgment; it will not be considered at final hearing if the case goes to trial, unless it is reintroduced, upon motion granted by the Board, during the appropriate trial period, or the parties stipulate to its use at trial. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 528.05(a)(1).
NOTES:
2. See, e.g., Eveready Battery Co. v. Green Planet, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2009) (regarding parties’ stipulation that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial pursuant to Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)); Micro Motion Inc. v. Danfoss A/S, 49 USPQ2d 1628, 1629 n.2 (TTAB 1998) (parties stipulated that evidence submitted in connection with summary judgment motion shall be deemed of record for trial).