413.02 Pretrial Conferences
37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(2) Whenever it appears to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that questions or issues arising during the interlocutory phase of an inter partes proceeding have become so complex that their resolution by correspondence or telephone conference is not practical and that resolution would likely be facilitated by a conference in person of the parties or their attorneys with an Administrative Trademark Judge or an Interlocutory Attorney of the Board, the Board may, upon its own initiative, direct that the parties and/or their attorneys meet with the Board for a disclosure, discovery or pretrial conference on such terms as the Board may order.
While rarely utilized, the Board has the discretion to order the parties to meet in person at the Board’s offices to resolve complex disputes surrounding disclosures and discovery for a pretrial conference. [ Note 1.] The rule is limited to exercise only by the Board, upon the Board’s initiative. [ Note 2.] Conferences are not to be recorded. [ Note 3.] For further information concerning pretrial conferences, see TBMP § 502.06(b).
NOTES:
1. Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 2011) (Board exercised its authority under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i)(2), effective January 14, 2017 redesignated by amendment to 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(2), and ordered the parties to appear in person at the office of the Board); General Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1591 n.5 (TTAB 2011) ("where the Board identifies overly contentious advocacy or the potential for the creation of excessive records, it may in the future exercise its authority under Trademark Rule 2.120(j)(2) to order a pretrial conference in person at the office of the Board"), judgment set aside on other grounds, 110 USPQ2d 1679 (TTAB 2014) (non-precedential); Amazon v. Wax, 95 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 (TTAB 2010) ("under Trademark Rule 2.120(j)(2), where resolution of discovery or other interlocutory issues ‘would likely be facilitated by a conference in person of the parties or their attorneys,’ the Board may ‘request that the parties or their attorneys … meet with the Board at its offices’ for a conference. If the parties remain unwilling or unable to work together cooperatively and efficiently, the Board will not hesitate to invoke this Rule in the future.").
2. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(2); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69951 (October 7, 2016).