407 Requests for Admissions
407.01 When Permitted and By Whom
During the discovery period in an inter partes proceeding before the Board, any party may serve written requests for admissions on any other party. [ Note 1.] Like interrogatories and requests for production of documents, requests for admission may be served on an adversary after service of or contemporaneously with initial disclosures, absent a stipulation or granted motion or order of the Board to the contrary. [ Note 2.] TBMP § 403.01 and TBMP § 403.02. Requests for admissions, like interrogatories and requests for production of documents, must be served early enough in the discovery period, as originally set or as may have been reset by the Board, so that responses will be due no later than the close of discovery. [ Note 3.] TBMP § 403.02
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i).
3. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3). See also Estudi Moline Dissey, S.L. v. BioUrn Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1268, 1270 (TTAB 2017) (discovery must be served "early enough … so that responses will be due no later than the close of discovery"); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951 (October 7, 2016).
407.02 Scope and Nature of Requests for Admission
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) Requests for Admission.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:
- (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
- (B) the genuineness of any described documents.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2) Form; Copy of a Document. Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, or otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.
The scope and nature of requests for admission, in inter partes proceedings before the Board, are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a), which in turn refers to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
For a discussion of the scope of discovery permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and electronically stored information, see TBMP § 402.01 and TBMP § 402.02.
By definition, requests for admissions are designed to confirm the accuracy of information already available and are not designed to seek discovery of unknown information. Requests for admission are particularly useful for determining, prior to trial, which facts are not in dispute, thereby narrowing the matters that must be tried. These requests are also useful as a means of facilitating the introduction into evidence of documents produced by an adversary in response to a request for production of documents. [ Note 1.] TBMP § 403.05(b).
Unlike an interrogatory, through which a party asks its adversary to provide certain substantive information, a request for admission is a means through which a party asks its adversary to stipulate to a certain matter so as to reduce issues for trial. [ Note 2.] A party responding to a request for admission must admit the matter of which an admission is requested, deny the matter, or state in detail the reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. [ Note 3.] See TBMP § 407.03(b) (Nature of Responses). An admission in response to a request for admission "conclusively establishe[s]" the matter that is the subject of that request. [ Note 4.] However, a denial in response to a request for admission is merely a refusal to stipulate to a certain matter, thus leaving that matter to be resolved on the merits. [ Note 5.] Accordingly, requests for admission are not properly used as additional means of obtaining substantive information to circumvent the numerical limit on interrogatories. Further, a motion to test the sufficiency of a response to a request for admission is not properly based on a denial of a request for admissions that a propounding party/movant believes should have been admitted. [ Note 6.]
NOTES:
1. See, e.g., ProQuest Information and Learning Co. v. Island, 83 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 n.6 (TTAB 2007) (opposer filed notice of reliance on applicant’s response to request for admission and exhibits thereto that all documents it produced in response to opposer’s discovery requests were authentic for purposes of admission into evidence during the testimony period in the opposition proceeding); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1103 (TTAB 2007) (documents produced in response to petitioner’s interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) for which respondent admitted via a request for admission were true and correct copies of authentic documents could be introduced by way of notice of reliance).
2. See The Phillies v. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp., 107 USPQ2d 2149, 2152 (TTAB 2013).
3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
5. See The Phillies v. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp., 107 USPQ2d, 2149, 2152 (TTAB 2013); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1036 n.8 (TTAB 2007).
6. See National Semiconductor Corp. v. Ramtron International Corp., 265 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2003).
407.03 Responses to Requests for Admission
407.03(a) Time for Service of Responses
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3) . . . Responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, and requests for admission must be served within thirty days from the date of service of such discovery requests. * * *
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time: on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
Responses to requests for admission must be served within 30 days after the date of service of the requests. [ Note 1.] TBMP § 403.03. The time to respond may be extended upon stipulation of the parties, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board, but the response may not be due later than the close of discovery. [ Note 2.] The resetting of a party’s time to respond to any outstanding requests for admission will not result in the automatic rescheduling of the discovery and/or testimony periods; such dates will be rescheduled only upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [ Note 3.]
Service of responses to requests for production must be made by email, unless otherwise stipulated, or if the serving party attempted service by email but service could not be made due to technical problems or extraordinary circumstances, by the manner described in 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(b)(1) - 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(b)(4); however, if a party is not domiciled in the United States or represented by an attorney or authorized representative in the United States, then no party to the proceeding is eligible to use postal mail as a manner of service. [ Note 4.] TBMP § 113.05. Additionally, even if service of requests for admission is made by postal service or overnight courier, 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(c) has been amended to remove the past provision that allowed an additional five days to the proscribed response period after the date of service so that no additional time for service of discovery responses is allowed for responding to the requests under any manner of service. [ Note 5.] TBMP § 403.03
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, a requested admission is deemed admitted unless a written answer or objection is provided to the requesting party within thirty days after service of the request, or within such time as the parties agree to in writing. [ Note 6.]
If a party on which requests for admission have been served fails to timely respond thereto, the requests will stand admitted by operation of law [ Note 7.] unless the party is able to show that its failure to timely respond was the result of excusable neglect [ Note 8.] or unless a motion to withdraw or amend the admissions is filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) and granted by the Board. [ Note 9.] It is not necessary to file a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted when no response is served, since the admissions are deemed admitted by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).
For further information concerning motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) to withdraw or amend admissions, see TBMP § 525.
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3).
4. 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(b); 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(d). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69959 (October 7, 2016).
5. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69960 (October 7, 2016).
6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
7. Fram Trak Industries v. Wiretracks LLC, 77 USPQ2d 2000, 2005 (TTAB 2006) (requests for admissions deemed admitted by respondent’s failure to respond to petitioner’s requests for admissions); Pinnochio’s Pizza Inc. v. Sandra Inc., 11 USPQ2d 1227, 1228 n.5 (TTAB 1989) (same).
8. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1306, 1307 (TTAB 2007) (counsel’s mistaken belief that opposing counsel would grant an extension for responding to admissions did not constitute excusable neglect to reopen time to respond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)); Hobie Designs Inc. v. Fred Hayman Beverly Hills Inc., 14 USPQ2d 2064, 2064 n.1 (TTAB 1990) (to the extent applicant by its motion sought to be relieved of the untimeliness of its response, motion was not well taken because the reasons for failing to timely respond did not constitute excusable neglect).
9. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1306, 1307 (TTAB 2007) (finding merits of action subserved by withdrawal of admissions and replacement with later served responses and finding no prejudice to petitioner under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)); Hobie Designs Inc. v. Fred Hayman Beverly Hills Inc., 14 USPQ2d 2064, 2065 (TTAB 1990) ("...where failure to timely respond to a request for admission has harsh result, Rule 36(b) provides method for obtaining relief."). See also American Automobile Association (Inc.) v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 19 USPQ2d 1142, 1144 (5th Cir. 1991) (court may not sua sponte withdraw or ignore admissions without a motion to withdraw or amend); Johnston Pump/General Valve Inc. v. Chromalloy American Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1719, 1721 (TTAB 1989) (presentation of merits of case aided by relieving opposer of admission on relevant issue and prejudice avoided by allowing applicant limited discovery as to the amended answer; BankAmerica Corp. v. International Travelers Cheque Co., 205 USPQ 1233, 1235 (TTAB 1979) (motion to withdraw admissions by default denied, but to extent admissions are contradicted by evidence, they will not be relied on for purposes of deciding whether entry of summary judgment is appropriate); Questor Corp. v. Dan Robbins & Associates, Inc., 199 USPQ 358, 361 n.2 (TTAB 1978) (by failing to answer requests for admissions, opposer admitted that it abandoned use of certain registered marks), aff’d, 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100 (CCPA 1979).
407.03(b) Nature of Responses
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5) Objections. The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated. A party must not object solely on the ground that the request presents a genuine issue for trial.
Responses to requests for admission must be made in writing, and should include an answer or objection to each matter of which an admission is requested. [ Note 1.]
The Board prefers that the responding party reproduce each request immediately preceding the answer or objection thereto.
An answer must admit the matter of which an admission is requested, deny the matter, or state in detail the reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify as much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. [ Note 2.]
If the responding party objects to a request for admission, the reasons for objection must be stated. If a responding party believes that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial, the party may not object to the request on that ground alone. Rather, the party may deny the matter; alternatively, the party may set forth reasons why it cannot admit or deny the matter. [ Note 3.]
It is generally inappropriate for a party to respond to requests for admission by filing a motion attacking them, such as a motion to strike, a motion to suppress, a motion for a protective order, etc. Rather, the party ordinarily should respond by answering those requests that it believes to be proper and stating its reasons for objection to those that it believes to be improper. [ Note 4.] See TBMP § 410. For information regarding a party’s duty to supplement requests for admissions, see TBMP § 408.03
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).
2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).
3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).
4. Emilio Pucci International BV v. Sachdev, 118 USPQ2d 1383, 1385 (TTAB 2016).
407.03(c) Signature of Responses
Answers and objections to requests for admission may be signed either by the responding party, or by its attorney. [ Note 1.] However, an attorney who signs answers or objections to requests for admission risks becoming a witness or disqualification from representation. [ Note 2.]
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
2. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.307. Cf. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Healthy America Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1663, 1666 n.4 (TTAB 1988).
407.04 Effect of Admission
Any matter admitted (either expressly, or for failure to timely respond) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) is conclusively established unless the Board, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission or the Board permits a reopening of the time for responding to the admission requests. [ Note 1.]
For further information concerning motions to withdraw or amend an admission, see TBMP § 525.
An admission made by a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) is only for the purpose of the pending proceeding. It is not an admission for any other purpose, nor may it be used against that party in any other proceeding. [ Note 2.]
The denial of a request for admission establishes neither the truth nor the falsity of the assertion, but rather leaves the matter for proof at trial. [ Note 3.]
NOTES:
1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). See Texas Department of Transportation v. Tucker, 95 USPQ2d 1241, 1244 (TTAB 2010) (admission conclusively establishes matter that is the subject of request for admission, subsequent argument to the contrary in response brief insufficient to raise genuine issue of material fact); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1037 n.8 (TTAB 2007) ("An admission in response to a request for admission ‘conclusively establishe[s]’ the matter that is subject of that request . . . . However, a denial in response to a request for admission is merely a refusal to stipulate to certain matter"). See also American Automobile Association, v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 19 USPQ2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1991) (an admission not withdrawn or amended cannot be rebutted by contrary testimony at trial); Baseball America Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1846 n.7 (TTAB 2004) (because proceedings were deemed suspended prior to service of requests for admissions, Board declined to treat requests for admissions as having been admitted by applicant for failure to timely respond, considering only those requests applicant expressly admitted; Olin Corp. v. Hydrotreat, Inc., 210 USPQ 63, 65 n.4 (TTAB 1981) (anything not admitted is not established).
2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
3. Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Group Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953, 1957 n.10 (TTAB 2008).
407.05 Limit on Number
407.05(a) Description of Limit
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i) Requests for admission. The total number of requests for admission which a party may serve upon another party pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a proceeding, shall not exceed seventy-five, counting subparts . . . . However, independent of this limit, a party may make one comprehensive request for admission of any adverse party that has produced documents for an admission authenticating specific documents, or specifying which of those documents cannot be authenticated.
The total number of requests for admission which a party may serve on another party in a proceeding may not exceed 75, counting subparts, except that the Board, may allow additional requests for admission upon motion therefor showing good cause, or upon stipulation of the parties, approved by the Board. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 519. Independent of this numerical limit, a party may make one additional comprehensive request for admission of any adverse party that has produced documents, for authenticating specific documents, or specifying which of those documents cannot be authenticated. [ Note 2.]
NOTES:
1. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951, 69961 (October 7, 2016). Cf. Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1467 n.5 (TTAB 1990) (the Board stating in the context of interrogatories in excess of the limit that "good cause will generally be found only where a legitimate need for further discovery by means of interrogatories is shown . . . the fact that the additional interrogatories served by opposer may be relevant and narrowly drawn to a single issue is insufficient, in and of itself, to demonstrate good cause.").
2. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951, 69961 (October 7, 2016).
407.05(b) Application of Limit: Sets of Requests for Admission
The numerical limit specified in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i) pertains to the total number of requests for admission that one party may serve on another party over the course of an entire proceeding, not just per set of requests for admission. Thus, if a party to a proceeding before the Board serves, over the course of the proceeding, two or more separate sets of requests for admission directed to the same party, the requests in the separate sets would be added together for purposes of determining whether the numerical limit specified in the rule has been exceeded. [ Note 1.]
Accordingly, a party which is preparing a first set of requests for admission should consider reserving a portion of its allotted 75 requests (counting subparts) to use for follow-up discovery, unless it is sure that it will not be serving follow-up requests for admission.
NOTES:
1. Cf. Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1467 (TTAB 1990) (interrogatories).
407.05(c) Application of Limit: Multiple Marks, Etc.
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i) does not provide for extra requests for admission in cases where more than one mark is pleaded and/or attacked by the plaintiff (whether in a single proceeding, or in consolidated proceedings). Similarly, the rule does not provide for extra requests for admission in cases where there is a counterclaim. That is, the mere fact that a proceeding involves multiple marks (whether in a single proceeding, or in consolidated proceedings) and/or a counterclaim does not mean that a party is entitled to serve 75 requests for admission, counting subparts, for each mark, or for each proceeding that has been consolidated, or for both the main claim and the counterclaim. Nor does such fact, in and of itself, constitute good cause for a motion for leave to serve additional requests for admission. However, a proceeding with multiple marks and/or a counterclaim may involve unusually numerous or complex issues, and these are factors that will be considered in determining a motion for leave to serve additional requests for admission. [ Note 1.]
NOTES:
1. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69961 (October 7, 2016) (providing examples that may support a showing of good cause for leave to serve additional requests for admission).
407.05(d) Application of Limit: Counting Requests for Admission
In determining whether the number of requests for admission served by one party on another exceeds the limit specified in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i), requests for admission will be counted reflecting the form articulated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2), which states: "Each matter must be separately stated." [ Note 1.] The method for counting requests for admission therefore differs from the method for counting interrogatories and requests for production of document and things.
NOTES:
1. See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69962 (October 7, 2016).
407.05(e) Remedy for Excessive Requests for Admission
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j) . . . If a party upon which requests for admission have been served believes that the number of requests for admission exceeds the limitation specified in this paragraph, and is not willing to waive this basis for objection, the party shall, within the time for (and instead of) serving answers and specific objections to the requests for admission, serve a general objection on the ground of their excessive number.
If a party on which requests for admissions have been served, in a proceeding before the Board, believes that the number of requests exceeds the limit specified in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i), and wishes to object to the requests on this basis, the party must, within the time for (and instead of) serving responses and specific objections to the requests, serve a general objection on the ground of their excessive number. [ Note 1.] A party should not answer what it considers to be the first 75 requests for admissions and object to the rest as excessive. [ Note 2.]
If a general objection on the ground of excessive number is asserted, and the propounding party, in turn, believes that the objection is not well taken, and wishes to obtain an adjudication from the Board as to the sufficiency thereof, the propounding party must file a motion to determine the sufficiency of the general objection. [ Note 3.] The motion must be accompanied by copies of the set(s) of requests for admission which together are said to exceed the limitation, any exhibits to the requests, and the general objection to the requests, and must be supported by a showing from the moving party that such party or its attorney has made a good faith effort, by conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or its attorney the issues presented in the motion and has been unable to reach agreement. [ Note 4.] It is further recommended that the moving party set out its counting method showing that the number of requests for admission does not exceed 75. [ Note 5.] For further information concerning motions to test the sufficiency of objections to requests for admission, see TBMP § 524.
If, on a motion to determine the sufficiency of a general objection to requests for admission on the ground of excessive number, the Board finds that the requests for admission are excessive in number, and that the propounding party has not previously used up its allotted 75 requests, the Board normally will allow the propounding party an opportunity to serve a revised set of requests for admission not exceeding the numerical limit. The revised set of requests for admission serves as a substitute for the excessive set, and thus is deemed timely if the excessive set was timely. [ Note 6.]
However, if an order providing for a revised set of requests for admission is issued late in the discovery period or after the close of the discovery period, the discovery period will be extended or reopened, as appropriate, to permit service of and responses to the revised set. Where discovery is reopened, the scope of the revised set may not exceed the scope of the excessive set, that is, the revised set may not seek information beyond the scope of the excessive set. [ Note 7.]
In those cases where a party which has propounded requests for admission realizes, on receipt of a general objection thereto on the ground of excessive number, that the requests for admission are, in fact, excessive in number, it is strongly recommended that the parties voluntarily agree to the service of a revised set of requests, in the manner normally allowed by the Board, instead of bringing their dispute to the Board by a motion to test the sufficiency of the general objection.
NOTES:
1. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i). Cf. Amazon Technologies v. Wax, 93 USPQ2d 1702, 1705 (TTAB 2009).
2. Cf. Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990) (stating that a party responding to interrogatories should not answer what it considers to be the first seventy-five interrogatories and file a motion for a protective order as to the remainder).
3. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i)(1); TBMP § 524.01.
5. Cf. Emilio Pucci International BV v. Sachdev, 118 USPQ2d 1383, 1385 (TTAB 2016) (parties should specifically discuss their respective counting methods in attempt to resolve dispute over number of interrogatories).
6. Cf. Jan Bell Marketing, Inc. v. Centennial Jewelers, Inc., 19 USPQ2d 1636, 1637 (TTAB 1990); Pyttronic Industries, Inc. v. Terk Technologies Corp., 16 USPQ2d 2055, 2056 (TTAB 1990); Kellogg Co. v. Nugget Distributors’ Cooperative of America, Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1468, 1469 (TTAB 1990). See also Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc. v. Circle Consulting Group Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1398, 1398-99 (TTAB 1990) (excusing obligation to answer excessive set); Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990). Cf. Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1468 n.6 (TTAB 1990) (opposer may seek answers by taking discovery deposition of applicant).
7. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)(3). Cf. Jan Bell Marketing, Inc. v. Centennial Jewelers, Inc., 19 USPQ2d 1636, 1637 (TTAB 1990); Kellogg Co. v. Nugget Distributors’ Cooperative of America, Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1468, 1469 (TTAB 1990).