707    Objections to Evidence

707.01    In General

37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a)  Applicable rules. Unless the parties otherwise stipulate, the rules of evidence for proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are the Federal Rules of Evidence, the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the relevant provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code, and the provisions of this part. When evidence has been made of record by one party in accordance with these rules, it may be referred to by any party for any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The introduction of evidence in inter partes proceedings before the Board is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, the relevant portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the relevant provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code, and the rules of practice in trademark cases (i.e., the provisions of Part 2 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations). [ Note 1.] A party to a Board inter partes proceeding that believes that proffered evidence should, under these rules, be excluded from consideration, may raise an objection. The procedure for raising an objection to proffered evidence depends on the nature of the evidence and the ground for objection. [ Note 2.]

As a general proposition, where ordinarily inadmissible hearsay evidence is admitted into evidence without objection, it may be considered for whatever probative value the finder of fact chooses to give it. [ Note 3.] When parties specifically agree to waive hearsay objections, the Board may rely on the evidence for the truth of the matter asserted. [ Note 4.]

The Board is entitled to weigh the evidence [ Note 5.], and has the discretion on how it considers evidentiary objections, especially in cases where numerous objections have been lodged or the objections are not outcome determinative. [ Note 6.]

An objection that is first raised in a reply brief is untimely. [ Note 7.]

See TBMP § 801.02(c) for information about reply briefs.

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a).

 2.   See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020); see also Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (objection that evidence was not adequately disclosed in pretrial disclosures overruled as untimely and waived when first raised in trial brief; objection is curable and should have been made via motion to strike promptly after testimony declaration and exhibits were filed), appeal filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-MHL (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020).

 3.   See, e.g., Daniel J. Quirk Inc. v. Village Car Co., 120 USPQ2d 1146 (TTAB 2016); Sunnen Products Co. v. Sunex International Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1746 n.9 (TTAB 1987); Flowers Industries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ2d 1580, 1582 n.4 (TTAB 1987).

 4.   Daniel J. Quirk Inc. v. Village Car Co., 120 USPQ2d 1146 (TTAB 2016); Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080, 1086 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439, 115 USPQ2d 1524 (E.D. Va. 2015), vacated and remanded, Pro Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 709 F. App’x 183 (per curiam) (4th Cir. 2018) (mem.). Cf. Optimal Chemical Inc. v. Srills LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 338409, at *14 n.90 (TTAB 2019) (Board considered Internet evidence for the truth of the matters asserted where the petitioner did not object and opined on its accuracy in its rebuttal testimony and rebuttal brief).

 5.   See Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("The TTAB is entitled to weigh the evidence …") (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856, 214 USPQ 1, 7 (1982) ("Determining the weight and credibility of the evidence is the special province of the trier of fact.")).

 6.   See International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3, *7 (TTAB 2020) (Board declined to rule on applicant’s 150 individual evidentiary objections; instead ruling on only a selected few), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *2 (TTAB 2020) ("Board proceedings are heard by Administrative Trademark Judges, not lay jurors who might easily be misled, confused, or prejudiced by irrelevant evidence"); Hanscomb Consulting, Inc. v. Hanscomb Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 10085, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board is "capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony and evidence, including any inherent limitations"); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Thomann, 2020 USPQ2d 53785, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (same); Ricardo Media Inc. v. Inventive Software, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 311355, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (same); M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd., 2019 USPQ2d 149090, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (same); Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, 2019 USPQ2d 370880 at *1-2 (TTAB 2019) (same); Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (Board is capable of assessing the proper evidentiary weight to be accorded the testimony and evidence, including its imperfections and admissibility, and according it whatever probative value it may have); Pierce-Arrow Society v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (Board saw no compelling reason to individually address the objections of hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, lack of authentication, irrelevance, and lack of foundation but kept the objections in mind when considering the testimony and evidence, and according appropriate value to the testimony and evidence according to its merits); Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 460354, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (declining to individually address numerous objections that go to weight rather than admissibility, noting that the Board is capable of weighing the relevance or the strength or weakness of the evidence and according it appropriate probative value), complaint filed, No. 20-cv-109 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2020); Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1200 (TTAB 2018) ("[O]ur proceedings are tried before judges not likely to be easily confused or prejudiced. Objections to trial testimony on bases more relevant to jury trials are particularly unnecessary in this forum."), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022); RxD Media, LLC v. IP Application Development LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (TTAB 2018) ("the Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected to testimony and evidence, including any inherent limitations"), aff’d, 377 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Va. 2019), aff’d, 986 F.3d 361, 2021 USPQ2d 81 (4th Cir. 2021); Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K., 125 USPQ2d 1468, 1478 (TTAB 2017) (where parties devoted more than 30 pages of their briefing at final hearing to numerous detailed evidentiary objections, Board exercised discretion to rule explicitly only on major objections); Poly-America, L.P. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1508, 1510 (TTAB 2017) ("we choose not to make specific rulings on each and every objection"), aff’d, No. 3:18-cv-00443-C (N.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-11180 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020); Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 2017), appeal dismissed per stipulation, No. 17-00345 (E.D. Va. August 24, 2017); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1737 (TTAB 2014); Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (TTAB 2013), aff’d , 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 (TTAB 2007); Hunt Control Systems Inc. v. Koninkijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 98 USPQ2d 1558, 1564 (TTAB 2011) ("Ultimately, the Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony and evidence in this specific case, including any inherent limitations, and this precludes the need to strike the testimony and evidence."); U.S. Playing Card Co. v. Harbro LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1537, 1540 (TTAB 2006) ("[B]ecause an opposition is akin to a bench trial, the Board is capable of assessing the proper evidentiary weight to be accorded the testimony and evidence, taking into account the imperfections surrounding the admissibility of such testimony and evidence."). Cf. Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981) ("In bench trials, judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making decisions.").

 7.   See Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1199 (TTAB 2018) ("Objections raised for the first time in a reply brief are untimely because they effectively foreclose the adverse party from responding to the objections."), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022). Cf. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1927 (TTAB 2011) (objection on the basis that the witness had not been previously disclosed waived where not renewed in main brief and raised for first time in rebuttal brief), aff’d, 188 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 743 F. App’x 457, 128 USPQ2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 (TTAB 2007) (objection raised at trial waived when petitioner waited until its reply brief to renew objections).

707.02    Objections to Notices of Reliance

707.02(a)    In General

During its testimony period, a party may make certain specified types of evidence of record by filing a notice of reliance thereon, accompanied by the evidence being offered. See generally TBMP § 702 and TBMP § 704. 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(3)(i)  provides for the introduction, by notice of reliance, of a discovery deposition, an answer to an interrogatory, an admission to a request for admission, or written initial disclosure; but 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(3)(ii)  specifically states that documents obtained through disclosure or by production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 may not be made of record by notice of reliance alone, except to the extent that they are admissible by notice of reliance under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e), or the party has obtained an admission or stipulation from the producing party that authenticates the documents. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(d)(2)  provides for the introduction, by notice of reliance, of a registration owned by a party to a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)  provides for the introduction, by notice of reliance, of certain specified types of printed publications and official records. See also TBMP § 704.03(b), TBMP § 704.07, TBMP § 704.08, TBMP § 704.09, TBMP § 704.10, and TBMP § 704.11 discussing introduction of other types of evidence by notice of reliance.

Some grounds for objection to a notice of reliance are waived unless promptly made (generally errors of any kind which might be obviated or cured if promptly presented) while other grounds that cannot be cured may be raised at any time. In instances where the Board allows a party leave to cure objectionable evidence submitted under notice of reliance, the Board will not consider evidence submitted outside the scope of the original leave to cure. [ Note 1.] The various grounds for objection to a notice of reliance, and the time and procedure for raising them, are discussed in the sections that follow. See also TBMP § 707.04.

NOTES:

 1.   Coca-Cola Co. v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 709, at *10 (TTAB 2021) (objection sustained to petitioner’s "second Exhibit 13," because it is comprised of different materials and information from that in the "first Exhibit 13," and therefore is outside the scope of what petitioner was permitted to submit to cure the defect in the original).

707.02(b)    On Procedural Grounds

Ordinarily, a procedural objection to a notice of reliance should be raised promptly, preferably by motion to strike if the defect is one that can be cured. [ Note 1.] However, if the ground for the objection is one that could not be cured even if raised promptly, the adverse party may wait and raise the procedural objection in or with its brief on the case or in an appendix or separate statement of objections attached to the brief. [ Note 2.] If the objection is one that could have been cured promptly, and was not timely raised, the objection is deemed to be waived. [ Note 3.]

For information concerning motions to strike notices of reliance, see TBMP § 532.

NOTES:

 1.   See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(g)  and MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69964 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is adding new § 2.122(g) detailing the requirement for admission of evidence by notice of reliance. Section 2.122(g) provides that a notice must indicate generally the relevance of the evidence offered and associate it with one or more issues in the proceeding, but failure to do so with sufficient specificity is a procedural defect that can be cured by the offering party within the time set by Board order. The amendment codifies current case law and Office practice."); Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1199 (TTAB 2018) (objections deemed waived when raised for the first time in a reply brief because adverse party is effectively prevented from responding to them), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1163 (TTAB 2017) ("Objections to testimony or to a notice of reliance grounded in asserted procedural defects are waived unless raised promptly, when there is an opportunity to cure."); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1291 (TTAB 1986) (objection waived where respondent received notice of reliance without referenced publications appended thereto but did not raise the issue until briefing); Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881, 883 (TTAB 1979) (objection that notice of reliance did not set forth relevance of appended documents raised for first time in brief waived).

 2.   Effective January 14, 2017, 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b)  was amended to clarify and codify current practice that evidentiary objections may be set out in a separate appendix that does not count against the page limit for a brief. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69967 (October 7, 2016). See Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1789, 1792 (TTAB 1998) (motion to strike trial brief as exceeding page limitation denied where evidentiary objections which were not required to be raised immediately were raised in appendices to the brief rather than in text of brief); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (TTAB 1992) (objections to testimony on grounds including relevance and bias of witness, raised a year after depositions were taken and set out in a separate paper from brief, were not untimely and paper did not result in violation of page limitation for final briefs).

 3.   See Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. The General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2021 USPQ2d 643, at *1 Appendix B (TTAB 2021) (objection asserted for the first time in trial brief to Internet materials submitted under notice of reliance on that ground that they do not include either the URL or the date accessed deemed waived because objecting party failed to promptly file a motion to strike); City National Bank v. OPGI Management GP Inc./Gestion OPGI Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1668, 1672 (TTAB 2013) (petitioner’s objection to respondent’s submission via notice of reliance of a business brochure prepared by a third party overruled; "[a]ny shortcomings in respondent’s original submission … under notice of reliance, such as its failure to identify the URL and when the document was actually accessed (either printed out or downloaded), are procedural deficiencies that were not timely raised by petitioner and thus have been waived); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 102 USPQ2d 1085, 1093 (TTAB 2012) (objection that relevance of evidence not identified waived where raised for first time with brief because procedural deficiency could have been cured if objection had been raised seasonably); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1291-92 (TTAB 1986) (defect of failing to append copy of printed publication identified in notice of reliance could have been cured); Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. BAMA-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408, 409 n.3 (TTAB 1986) (petitioner’s objection that respondent’s justification for reliance on its own discovery responses was insufficient raised for first time in petitioner’s brief was untimely since defect is one which could have been cured if raised promptly); Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73, 74 n.2 (TTAB 1983) (objection that items submitted by notice of reliance were neither official records nor printed publications raised in brief sustained); Quaker Oats Co. v. Acme Feed Mills, Inc., 192 USPQ 653, 655 n.9 (TTAB 1976) (objection to notice of reliance as to statement of relevance of third-party registrations untimely); Manpower, Inc. v. Manpower Information Inc., 190 USPQ 18, 21 (TTAB 1976) (objection that notice of reliance failed to indicate relevance of materials was curable and should have been raised when notice was filed).

707.02(b)(1)    On Ground of Untimeliness

When a notice of reliance under any of the aforementioned rules is filed after the close of the offering party’s testimony period, an adverse party may file a motion to strike the notice of reliance (and, thus, the evidence submitted thereunder), in its entirety, as untimely. [ Note 1.] Alternatively, an adverse party may raise this ground for objection in its brief on the case or in an appendix or separate statement of objections attached to the brief. [ Note 2.]

NOTES:

 1.   See, e.g., Maids to Order of Ohio Inc. v. Maid-to-Order Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1899, 1902 (TTAB 2006) (motion to strike supplemental notice of reliance as having been filed outside testimony period granted); Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (TTAB 1990) (motion to strike untimely supplemental notice of reliance to admit current status and title copy of registration in place of timely but older status and title copy granted); May Department Stores Co. v. Prince, 200 USPQ 803, 805 n.1 (TTAB 1978) (motion to strike untimely notice of reliance on interrogatory answers and certified copies of corporate records filed with the state granted). Cf. Optimal Chemical Inc. v. Srills LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 338409, at *3 n.28 (TTAB 2019) (any objection to the timeliness of petitioner’s exhibits to the notice of reliance filed after the close of the rebuttal period were deemed waived).

 2.   See, e.g., Questor Corp. v. Dan Robbins & Associates, Inc., 199 USPQ 358, 361 n.3 (TTAB 1978), aff’d, 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100 (CCPA 1979); Miss Nude Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ 729, 731 (TTAB 1976) (respondent’s objection to untimely notice of reliance raised for the first time in its brief was not waived), pet. to Comm’r denied, 198 USPQ 485 (Comm’r 1977). Cf. International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3 n.12 (TTAB 2020) (declarations signed prior to testimony period and submitted by opposers as trial testimony considered to have been properly submitted because applicants did not object to them as untimely, and, in fact, treated them as part of the record by raising substantive objections against them), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Of Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel Chartered, 21 USPQ2d 1555, 1556 n.2 (TTAB 1991) (where opposer’s testimony deposition was taken two days prior to opening of opposer’s testimony period, and applicant first raised an untimeliness objection in its brief on the case, objection held waived, since the premature taking of the deposition could have been corrected on seasonable objection).

707.02(b)(2)    On Other Procedural Grounds

An adverse party may object to a notice of reliance, in whole or in part, on the ground that the notice does not comply with the procedural requirements of the particular rule under which it was submitted, as, for example, that a 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)  notice of reliance on a printed publication does not include a copy of the printed publication, or does not indicate the general relevance and associate the proffered materials with one or more issues in the case in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(g)  [ Note 1.], or the proffered materials are not appropriate for introduction by notice of reliance. [ Note 2.]

When, on a motion to strike a notice of reliance on the ground that it does not meet the procedural requirements of the rule under which it was filed, the Board finds that the notice is defective, but that the defect is curable, the Board may allow the relying party time to cure the defect, failing which the notice will stand stricken. [ Note 3.]

If a motion to strike a notice of reliance raises objections that cannot be resolved simply by reviewing the face of the notice of reliance (and attached documents), the Board will defer determination of the motion until final hearing. [ Note 4.] When determination of a motion to strike a notice of reliance is deferred until final hearing, the parties should argue the matter alternatively in their briefs on the case.

Please Note: Some of the cases cited in this section involve former subsection (j) of 37 C.F.R. § 2.120 which was amended and redesignated as 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)  effective January 14, 2017.

NOTES:

 1.   See, e.g., STX Financing, LLC v. Terrazas, 2020 USPQ2d 10989, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (motion to strike opposer’s responses to applicant’s interrogatories for failure to indicate the general relevance of the interrogatory answers, instead asserting broadly that the interrogatories were relevant "to show no likelihood of confusion and/or dilution," granted with leave to cure), appeal dismissed sub nom. STX Financing, LLC. v. Vidal, No. 22-1192 2022 WL 1124962 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2022); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (granting motion to strike notices of reliance under Trademark Rule 2.122(g), with leave to cure, where relevancy description "so general as to be meaningless," and for insufficiently explaining association of documents with particular facts relevant to particular claims and defenses); FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1234, 1237 (TTAB 2014) (notice of reliance failed to sufficiently indicate the relevance of the material being offered by not specifying the relevance of the voluminous web pages submitted under two exhibits); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1233 (TTAB 1992) (motion to strike granted where notice of reliance was filed under inapplicable provision of rules in that items did not constitute discovery materials admissible under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(3) and opposer failed to explain relevance of appended copy of notice of opposition from a different case); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070, 1073 (TTAB 1990) (notice of reliance failed to indicate that documents were being introduced under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(3)(i) by specifying and making of record a copy of the particular interrogatories to which each document was provided in lieu of an interrogatory answer); Bison Corp. v. Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 USPQ2d 1718, 1719 n.4 (TTAB 1987) (motion to strike notice of reliance granted where opposer failed to indicate how its own answers clarified, rebutted or explained those relied on by applicant); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ 949, 951 (TTAB 1981) (motion to strike notice of reliance granted in part where applicant failed to identify specific answers sought to be introduced by answering party or indicate how they explained, clarified or rebutted answers relied on by inquiring party); Johnson & Johnson v. American Hospital Supply Corp., 187 USPQ 478, 479 (TTAB 1975) (applicant’s objection to opposer’s notice of reliance on letters between applicant and attorneys for third party well taken because such documents were not printed publications or official records and were not properly identified during deposition so as to lay foundation for introduction into evidence); Rogers Corp. v. Fields Plastics & Chemicals, Inc., 172 USPQ 377, 378-79 (TTAB 1972) (motion to strike notice of reliance on entire remainder of deposition granted); American Optical Corp. v. American Olean Tile Co., 169 USPQ 123, 124 (TTAB 1971) (motion to strike items in applicant’s notice of reliance stricken as they were either duplicative of evidence already made of record, not deemed to be printed publications in general circulation, or, in view of the purpose stated by applicant in the notice of reliance, hearsay).

 2.   See, e.g., WeaponX Performance Products Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1037 (TTAB 2018) (under circumstances of the case, Board denied opposer’s motion to strike testimony declarations that had been filed and served as exhibits to applicant’s notice of reliance, as doing otherwise would elevate form over substance. "Although the better practice would have been for Applicant to file and serve separately copies of the [witnesses’] testimony declarations, instead of attaching them as exhibits to its notice of reliance, Applicant’s failure to do so is of no consequence."); Research In Motion Ltd. v. NBOR Corp., 92 USPQ2d 1926, 1928 (TTAB 2009) (printed publications that include advertisements for party’s goods and services are not disqualified as proper subject matter for notice of reliance because they contain advertisements); Boyds Collection Ltd. v. Herrington & Co., 65 USPQ2d 2017, 2019-20 (TTAB 2003) (whether plaintiff’s price sheets and catalogs constitute proper subject matter for a notice of reliance is not a substantive issue and may be determined from the face of the notice of reliance). See also United Global Media Group, Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1046-47 (TTAB 2014) (evaluation of various documents submitted under notice of reliance).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.122(g). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69952 (October 7, 2016) ("To alleviate any uncertainty, this final rule adds a paragraph to the requirements for a notice of reliance, specifically, to require that the notice indicate generally the relevance of the evidence and associate it with one or more issues in the proceeding. In an effort to curtail motion practice on this point, the rule explicitly states any failure of a notice of reliance to meet this requirement will be considered a curable procedural defect. This codifies the holding of FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., 111 USPQ2d 1234, 1237 (TTAB 2014)."). See e.g., STX Financing, LLC v. Terrazas, 2020 USPQ2d 10989, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (motion to strike granted with leave to cure where general relevancy description was insufficient), appeal dismissed sub nom. STX Financing, LLC. v. Vidal, No. 22-1192 2022 WL 1124962 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2022); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (granting motion to strike notices of reliance under Trademark Rule 2.122(g), with leave to cure, where relevancy description "so general as to be meaningless," and for insufficiently explaining association of documents with particular facts relevant to particular claims and defenses; description in other notices of reliance acceptable because "sufficiently narrow or focused"). See also FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1234, 1237 (TTAB 2014) (motion to strike exhibits under notice of reliance granted with leave to cure); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1233 (TTAB 1992) (allowed 20 days to submit substitute notice of reliance remedying defects including submission of proper official record); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070, 1073 (TTAB 1990) (allowed time to clarify that the documents submitted by notice of reliance were in fact produced in response to interrogatories rather than in response to document requests); Heaton Enterprises of Nevada Inc. v. Lang, 7 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 n.6 (TTAB 1988) (documents remained stricken where party did not correct deficiencies).

 4.   See FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (TTAB 2014) (motion to strike unpleaded registration deferred as admissibility depends on purpose for which it was submitted); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1233 (TTAB 1992); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070, 1073 (TTAB 1990) (under the circumstances, whether documents were properly admissible under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(3)(i) and/or 2.120(j)(3)(ii) deferred).

707.02(c)    On Substantive Grounds

An adverse party may object to a notice of reliance on substantive grounds, such as that evidence offered under the notice constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal, or is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial. Objections of this nature normally should be raised in or with the objecting party’s brief on the case or in an appendix or separate statement of objections attached to the brief [ Note 1.], rather than by motion to strike, unless the ground for objection is one that could be cured if raised promptly by motion to strike. [ Note 2.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(b)(2) and TBMP § 707.03(c). This is because it is the policy of the Board not to read trial testimony or examine other trial evidence prior to final deliberations in the proceeding. See TBMP § 502.01. If a motion to strike a notice of reliance raises objections that cannot be resolved simply by reviewing the face of the notice of reliance (and attached documents), determination of the motion will be deferred by the Board until final hearing. [ Note 3.]

Evidence timely and properly introduced by notice of reliance under the applicable trademark rules generally will not be stricken, but the Board will consider any outstanding objections thereto in its evaluation of the probative value of the evidence at final hearing. [ Note 4.] Cf. TBMP § 707.03(c).

Because the parties to an inter partes Board proceeding generally will not know until final decision whether a substantive objection to a notice of reliance has been sustained, they should argue the matter alternatively in their briefs on the case.

NOTES:

 1.   Effective January 14, 2017, 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b)  was amended to clarify and codify current practice that evidentiary objections may be set out in a separate appendix that does not count against the page limit for a brief. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69967 (October 7, 2016). See Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (TTAB 2013) (appropriate evidentiary objections may be raised in appendix or separate submission rather than in text of brief.), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (mem.); Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1789, 1792 (TTAB 1998) (motion to strike trial brief as exceeding page limitation denied where evidentiary objections which were not required to be raised immediately were raised in appendices to the brief rather than in text of brief); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (TTAB 1992) (objections to testimony on grounds including relevance and bias of witness, raised a year after depositions were taken and set out in a separate paper from brief, were not untimely and paper did not result in violation of page limitation for final briefs).

 2.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(A).

 3.   See FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. v. Sonoscape Co., Ltd., 111 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (TTAB 2014) (motion to strike unpleaded registration deferred as admissibility depends on purpose for which it was submitted); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1233 (TTAB 1992) (whether notice of reliance sought to introduce improper rebuttal evidence deferred); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070, 1073 (TTAB 1990) (whether documents submitted by notice of reliance were properly authenticated and whether they constituted hearsay deferred).

 4.   See, e.g., Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (TTAB 1990) (timely notice of reliance on four-year-old status and title copy of pleaded registration was not stricken); Jetzon Tire & Rubber Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 177 USPQ 467, 468 n.3 (TTAB 1973) (copies of USPTO drawings are official records and therefore not stricken; however, their probative value is limited); American Optical Corp. v. American Olean Tile Co., 169 USPQ 123, 125 (TTAB 1971) ("Certificate of Good Standing" from a U.S. district court is admissible as an official record and therefore not stricken; however its probative value determined at final hearing). See also McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1268, 1274 (TTAB 2014) (where parties moved to strike evidence Board noted objections and took them into consideration allocating the appropriate weight to the evidence).

707.03    Objections to Trial Testimony

707.03(a)    In General

As in the case of an objection to a notice of reliance, an objection to trial testimony must be raised promptly if the defect is one that can be obviated or removed, failing which it is deemed waived. [ Note 1.] Parties are discouraged from filing objections that are not outcome-determinative or that do not have an effect on either their own or their adversary’s position. [ Note 2.] The objections, which are waived unless promptly raised, are basically procedural in nature. Objections to trial testimony are not waived for failure to make them during or before the taking of a deposition, or after receipt of a testimony declaration or affidavit, provided that the ground for objection is not one that might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time. These objections are basically substantive in nature. [ Note 3.] The grounds for objection to trial testimony and the procedures for raising them are discussed below.

NOTES:

 1.   See, e.g., Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (objection to inadequate pretrial disclosure overruled as untimely when first raised in trial brief because objection is curable and should have been made by the prompt filing of a motion to strike upon submission of testimony declaration and exhibits); Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *5 (TTAB 2020) (objection to foundation raised for the first time in trial brief is untimely because it is curable), appeal filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-MHL (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020); Nahshin v. Product Source International LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (TTAB 2013) ("As a general rule, objections that are curable must be seasonably raised, or they will be deemed waived"; objections to portions of depositions on written questions deemed waived), aff’d, 112 F. Supp. 3d 383 (E.D. Va. 2015).

 2.   See, e.g., International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board declined to consider applicants’ 150 individual objections), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); UMG Recordings Inc. v. Mattel Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1868, 1875-77 (TTAB 2011) (despite stipulations, opposer filed 25 pages of objections and applicant filed 100 pages of objections, essentially subverting the steps taken to streamline the process and burdening the Board; Board further set out specific objections as examples of what it overruled); Carefirst of Maryland Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1492, 1501 (TTAB 2005) ("At the oral hearing, pursuant to the Board’s inquiry, counsel indicated that none of the objected-to evidence is outcome determinative. Several of the parties’ objections merely reiterate what was raised in their motions to strike, and, thus, these evidentiary issues have already been handled above in deciding the various motions. … The parties spent an inordinate amount of effort on evidentiary disputes. The gamesmanship during discovery, which then carried over into certain aspects of the trial phase, is breathtaking, and both sides are guilty of participating in this wasteful behavior."), aff’d, 479 F.3d 825, 81 USPQ2d 1919 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cf. Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board is "well equipped to assess the testimony and the degree of accuracy of any subsequent characterization of it without resorting to striking testimony or questions," denying opposer’s objection and motion to strike a question of counsel, asked during a Rule 30(b)(6) discovery deposition, that had been submitted as trial evidence).

 3.   See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020) (discussing curable vs. noncurable objections), civil action filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-MHL (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020). See also International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3-7 (TTAB 2020) (objections based on lack of personal knowledge, hearsay and relevance raised for first time in main brief are timely), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).

707.03(b)    On Procedural Grounds

707.03(b)(1)    On Ground of Untimeliness

A party may not take a testimony deposition, or execute or submit a testimony affidavit or declaration, outside of its assigned testimony period, except by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or on motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 701.

When there is no such approved stipulation, granted motion or Board order, and a testimony deposition is taken or a testimony declaration or affidavit is executed or submitted after the close of the deposing or offering party’s testimony period, an adverse party may file a motion to strike the testimony, in its entirety, as untimely. See TBMP § 533.01. Alternatively, an adverse party may raise this ground for objection in its brief on the case or in an appendix or separate statement of objections attached to the brief. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 801.03. Cf. TBMP § 707.02(b)(1).

On the other hand, when a testimony deposition is noticed for a date prior to the opening of the deposing party’s testimony period, or affidavit or declaration testimony is executed or submitted prior to the opening of the submitting party’s testimony period, an adverse party that fails to promptly object to the testimony on the ground of untimeliness may be found to have waived this ground for objection, because the premature scheduling or submission of testimony is an error which can be corrected on seasonable objection. [ Note 3.]

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.121(a). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69963 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending § 2.121(a) to clarify that evidence must be presented during a party’s testimony period. … These amendments codify current Office practice."); Spotify AB v. U.S. Software Inc., 2022 USPQ2d 37, at *5 (TTAB 2022) (objection sustained to testimony declaration executed more than one year prior to trial); Hole In 1 Drinks, Inc. v. Lajtay, 2020 USPQ2d 71345, at *2 (TTAB 2020) ("a party may introduce testimony and evidence only during its assigned testimony period"); Wirecard AG v. Striatum Ventures B.V., 2020 USPQ2d 10086, at *2 n.3 (TTAB 2020) (parties stipulated that any declaration or affidavit shall be admissible even though executed before and not during the testimony period of a party). See also M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd., 2019 USPQ2d 149090, at *2 n.11 (TTAB 2019) (substitute testimony declaration was untimely filed outside of opposer’s testimony period); Robinson v. Hot Grabba Leaf, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 149089, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (three year old declaration from application file was not of record as trial testimony as it was not executed (taken) during petitioner’s testimony period), cancellation order vacated on default judgment, No. 0:19-cv-61614-DPG (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2019). Cf. International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3 n.12 (TTAB 2020) (declarations signed prior to testimony period considered because applicants did not object to them as untimely and treated them as part of the record), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b). Effective January 14, 2017, 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b) was amended to clarify and codify current practice that evidentiary objections may be set out in a separate appendix that does not count against the page limit for a brief. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69967 (October 7, 2016).

 3.   See International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3 n.12 (TTAB 2020) (declarations signed prior to testimony period and submitted by opposers as trial testimony considered because applicants did not object to them as untimely and treated them as part of the record by raising substantive objections against them) aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Of Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel Chartered, 21 USPQ2d 1555, 1556 n.2 (TTAB 1991) (objection to timeliness of testimony deposition taken two days before period opened, but raised for the first time in brief, waived).

707.03(b)(2)    On Ground of Improper or Inadequate Notice

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(c)  Notice of examination of witnesses. Before the oral depositions of witnesses shall be taken by a party, due notice in writing shall be given to the adverse party or parties, as provided in § 2.119(b), of the time when and place where the depositions will be taken, of the cause or matter in which they are to be used, and the name and address of each witness to be examined. Depositions may be noticed for any reasonable time and place in the United States. A deposition may not be noticed for a place in a foreign country except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. No party shall take depositions in more than one place at the same time, nor so nearly at the same time that reasonable opportunity for travel from one place of examination to the other is not available. When a party elects to take oral cross-examination of an affiant or declarant, the notice of such election must be served on the adverse party and a copy filed with the Board within 20 days from the date of service of the affidavit or declaration and completed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of election. Upon motion for good cause by any party, or upon its own initiative, the Board may extend the periods for electing and taking oral cross-examination. When such election has been made but cannot be completed within that testimony period, the Board, after the close of that testimony period, shall suspend or reschedule other proceedings in the matter to allow for the orderly completion of the oral cross-examination(s).

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)  Examination of witnesses.

• * * * *
• (3) If pretrial disclosures or the notice of examination of witnesses served pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section are improper or inadequate with respect to any witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, to preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record, which motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances.
  • (i) A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate pretrial disclosure may seek exclusion of the entire testimony, when there was no pretrial disclosure, or may seek exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not adequately disclosed in accordance with § 2.121(e).
  • (ii) A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate notice of examination must request the exclusion of the entire testimony of that witness and not only a part of that testimony.
  

Before testimony depositions on oral examination may be taken by a party, the party must give every adverse party due notice in writing of the time when and place where the depositions will be taken, the cause or matter in which they are to be used, and the name and address of each witness to be deposed. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 703.01(e).

When a party elects to take oral cross-examination of an affiant or declarant, the notice of such election must be served on the adverse party and a copy filed with the Board within 20 days from the date of service of the affidavit or declaration and completed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of election. [ Note 2.] The Board may extend the periods for electing and taking oral cross-examination and, when necessary, will suspend or reschedule the proceeding to allow the parties to orderly complete oral cross-examination(s) that cannot be completed within a testimony period. [ Note 3.] See TBMP § 703.01(e).

If the notice of examination of witnesses served by a party is improper or inadequate with respect to any witness, such as it does not give due (i.e., reasonable) notice, or does not identify a witness whose deposition is taken, an adverse party may cross-examine the witness under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. However, promptly after the deposition is completed, the adverse party, if it wishes to preserve the objection, must move to strike the testimony from the record. [ Note 4.] See TBMP § 533.02.

A motion to strike testimony for improper or inadequate notice must request the exclusion of the entire deposition, not just a part thereof. The motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. [ Note 5.]

For further information concerning motions to strike testimony for improper or inadequate notice, see TBMP § 533.02.

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(c). Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(c). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is further amending § 2.123(c) to add that, when a party elects to take oral cross-examination of an affiant or declarant, the notice of such election must be served on the adverse party and a copy filed with the Board within 20 days from the date of service of the affidavit or declaration and completed within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of election.")

 3.   See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is further amending § 2.123(c) to add that the Board may extend the periods for electing and taking oral cross-examination and, when necessary, shall suspend or reschedule proceedings in the matter to allow for the orderly completion of oral cross-examination(s) that cannot be completed within a testimony period.").

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3). See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1291 (TTAB 1986) (while respondent’s objection to notice was raised at the deposition, respondent failed to preserve the objection by moving to strike testimony promptly thereafter). Cf. Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 2019 USPQ2d 227680, at *2 n.9 (TTAB 2019) (in view of denial of motion to take oral cross-examination of foreign declarants, notice of election of oral cross-examination of no effect).

 5.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3).

707.03(b)(3)    On Ground of Failure to Disclose

37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e)  A party need not disclose, prior to its testimony period, any notices of reliance it intends to file during its testimony period. However, no later than fifteen days prior to the opening of each testimony period, or on such alternate schedule as may be provided by order of the Board, the party scheduled to present evidence must disclose the name and, if not previously provided, the telephone number and address of each witness from whom it intends to take testimony, or may take testimony if the need arises, general identifying information about the witness, such as relationship to any party, including job title if employed by a party, or, if neither a party nor related to a party, occupation and job title, a general summary or list of subjects on which the witness is expected to testify, and a general summary or list of the types of documents and things which may be introduced as exhibits during the testimony of the witness. … If a party does not plan to take testimony from any witnesses, it must so state in its pretrial disclosure. … When a party fails to make required pretrial disclosures, any adverse party or parties may have remedy by way of a motion to the Board to delay or reset any subsequent pretrial disclosure deadlines and/or testimony periods. A party may move to quash a noticed testimony deposition of a witness not identified or improperly identified in pretrial disclosures before the deposition. When testimony has been presented by affidavit or declaration, but was not covered by an earlier pretrial disclosure, the remedy for any adverse party is the prompt filing of a motion to strike …

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)  Examination of witnesses.

• * * * *
• (3) If pretrial disclosures or the notice of examination of witnesses served pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section are improper or inadequate with respect to any witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, to preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record, which motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances.
  • (i) A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate pretrial disclosure may seek exclusion of the entire testimony, when there was no pretrial disclosure, or may seek exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not adequately disclosed in accordance with § 2.121(e). …
  

A party may object to improper or inadequate pretrial or rebuttal disclosures and may move to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper pretrial or rebuttal disclosure. [ Note 1.]

If pretrial disclosures or the notice of examination of witnesses served pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(c)  are improper or inadequate with respect to any witness, an adverse party may move to quash a noticed testimony deposition of a witness not identified or improperly identified in pretrial disclosures before the deposition. [ Note 2.] The adverse party may also cross-examine that witness under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, to preserve the objection, must move to strike the testimony from the record, which motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. [ Note 3.] A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate pretrial disclosure may seek exclusion of the entire testimony, when there was no pretrial disclosure, or may seek exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not adequately disclosed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e). [ Note 4.]

When testimony has been presented by affidavit or declaration, but was not covered by an earlier pretrial or rebuttal disclosure, the remedy for any adverse party is the prompt filing of a motion to strike. [ Note 5.]

Failure to assert an objection in a timely manner may result in the objection being waived. [ Note 6.]

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3). See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.118; Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1623, 1628 (TTAB 2014) (expert witness testimony stricken after party failed to timely identify and disclose the witness), rev’d on other grounds, 84 F. Supp. 3d 490 (E.D. Va. 2015), vacated and remanded, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016), cert denied, 137 S. Ct. 1202 (2017), aff’d on remand, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1477 (E.D. Va. 2018), district court decision vacated and remanded, 2021 USPQ2d 126 (4th Cir. 2021) (Board decision upheld by 4th Circuit), petition for rehearing en banc filed, No. 18-2183, 18-2232 (4th Cir. March 2 , 2021); Jules Jurgensen/Rhapsody Inc. v. Baumberger, 91 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (TTAB 2009) (testimony stricken because identity of witness not disclosed prior to trial). Cf. Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 11526, at *2-3 (TTAB 2020) (respondent’s motion to strike rebuttal witness for failure to disclose denied where petitioner substituted its legal assistant for its previously disclosed attorney for same authentication purpose); Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (objection that evidence was not adequately disclosed in pretrial disclosures overruled as untimely and waived when first raised in trial brief; objection is curable and should have been made via motion to strike promptly after testimony declaration and exhibits were filed); WeaponX Performance Products Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1037 (TTAB 2018) (opposer’s objection to applicant’s testimony declarations submitted as exhibits to notice of reliance overruled where applicant provided notice to opposer via pretrial disclosures about witnesses and the subject matter of their anticipated testimony, testimony declarations were timely served, and opposer had opportunity but chose not to cross-examine the witnesses); Kate Spade LLC v. Thatch, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1098, 1099-1104 (TTAB 2018) (denying opposer’s motion to strike pretrial disclosure of the identity of three witnesses where one witness had been identified in initial and supplemental initial disclosures and failure to disclose earlier the identities of the other two found substantially justified and harmless).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e). MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69963 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is further amending § 2.121(e) to add that a party may move to quash a noticed testimony deposition of a witness not identified or improperly identified in pretrial disclosures before the deposition. The amendment codifies current Office practice.").

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3)(i). See Wonderbread 5 v. Gilles, 115 USPQ2d 1296, 1299 (TTAB 2015) (motion to strike the entirety of respondent’s testimony deposition on the basis that pretrial disclosures were untimely because sent to an incorrect address and attention of attorney no longer employed at the law firm granted in part and denied in part); Jules Jurgensen/Rhapsody Inc. v. Baumberger, 91 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (TTAB 2009) (failure to disclose testimony witness in initial disclosures considered as a relevant circumstance in determining whether to strike testimony deposition.). Cf. Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 11526, at *2-3 (TTAB 2020) (respondent’s motion to strike rebuttal witness for failure to disclose denied where petitioner substituted its legal assistant for its previously disclosed attorney for same authentication purpose); Entravision Communications Corp. v. Liberman Television LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1526 (TTAB 2015) (motion to substitute expert witness and report granted, where prior disclosed witness unavailable).

 5.   37 C.F.R. § 2.121(e). MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69963 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is further amending § 2.121(e) to add that when testimony has been presented by affidavit or declaration, but was not covered by an earlier pretrial disclosure, the remedy for any adverse party is the prompt filing of a motion to strike…"). See Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. The General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2021 USPQ2d 643, at *5 Appendix B (TTAB 2021) (objection to testimony declaration and attached email exchange on the ground that the witness was not identified in rebuttal pretrial disclosures overruled; proper remedy is the prompt filing of a motion to strike); WeaponX Performance Products Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1037 (TTAB 2018) (opposer’s objection to applicant’s testimony declarations overruled where applicant provided notice to opposer via pretrial disclosures about witnesses and the subject matter of their anticipated testimony, testimony declarations were timely served, and opposer had opportunity but chose not to cross-examine the witnesses); Kate Spade LLC v. Thatch, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1098, 1099-1104 (TTAB 2018) (opposer’s motion to strike pretrial disclosure of the identity of three witnesses denied--no surprise where one witness had been identified in initial and supplemental initial disclosures, and failure to disclose in supplemental initial disclosures the identities of the other two found substantially justified and harmless when applicant ascertained the identities shortly before serving pretrial disclosures, but applicant had listed the subject matter of their testimony in initial disclosures, and the record showed that opposer was aware of the witnesses and the pertinent information covered in their testimony declarations).

 6.   See Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (objection that evidence was not adequately disclosed in pretrial disclosures overruled as untimely and waived when first raised in trial brief; objection is curable and should have been made via motion to strike promptly after testimony declaration and exhibits were filed); Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1927 (TTAB 2011) (objection on the basis that the witness had not been previously disclosed waived where not renewed in main brief and raised for first time in rebuttal brief), aff’d, 188 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 743 F. App’x 457, 128 USPQ2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

707.03(c)    On Other Procedural Grounds and on Substantive Grounds

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3)  If pretrial disclosures or the notice of examination of witnesses served pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section are improper or inadequate with respect to any witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, to preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record, which motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances.

• (i) A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate pretrial disclosure may seek exclusion of the entire testimony, when there was no pretrial disclosure, or may seek exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not adequately disclosed in accordance with § 2.121(e).
• (ii) A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate notice of examination must request the exclusion of the entire testimony of that witness and not only a part of that testimony.

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(4)  All objections made at the time of an oral examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections.

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(i)  Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. Rule 32(d)(1), (2), and (3)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to errors and irregularities in depositions. Notice will not be taken of merely formal or technical objections which shall not appear to have wrought a substantial injury to the party raising them; and in case of such injury it must be made to appear that the objection was raised at the time specified in said rule.

37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j)  Objections to admissibility. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (i) of this section, objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration, affidavit, or deposition, or part thereof, or any other evidence, for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence from consideration. Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony must be raised at the time specified in Rule 32(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such objections may not be considered until final hearing.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d) Waiver of Objections.

• (1) To the Notice. An objection to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party giving the notice.
• (2) To the Officer’s Qualification. An objection based on disqualification of the officer before whom a deposition is to be taken is waived if not made:
  • (A) before the deposition begins; or
  • (B) promptly after the basis for disqualification becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
  
• (3) To the Taking of the Deposition.
  • (A) Objection to Competence, Relevance, or Materiality. An objection to a deponent’s competence — or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony — is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.
  • (B) Objection to an Error or Irregularity. An objection to an error or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if:
    • (i) it relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party’s conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and
    • (ii) it is not timely made during the deposition.
  • (C) Objection to a Written Question. An objection to the form of a written question under Rule 31 is waived if not served in writing on the party submitting the question within the time for serving responsive questions or, if the question is a recross question, within 7 days after being served with it.
  
• (4) To Completing and Returning the Deposition. An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony — or prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, sent, or otherwise dealt with the deposition — is waived unless a motion to suppress is made promptly after the error or irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.

An adverse party may object to any form of testimony not only on the grounds of untimeliness, see TBMP § 707.03(b)(1), but also on the ground that the party taking the testimony has not complied with one or more of the procedural requirements specified in the rules governing the particular type of testimony in Board inter partes proceedings. In the case of testimony depositions, a party may also object on the grounds of improper or inadequate notice. See TBMP § 707.03(b)(2). In addition, objection may be made to any form of testimony on one or more substantive grounds, such as that the witness is incompetent to testify, or that the testimony is irrelevant or constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal. The time and procedure for raising these objections is described below.

Because parties that have raised objections to trial testimony generally will not know the disposition thereof until final decision, they should argue the matters alternatively in their briefs on the case.

Please Note: Some of the cases cited in this section established principles later codified in the cited provisions in former 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(i), now 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j), or were decided under rules which were the predecessors to such provisions.

707.03(c)(1)    Oral Testimony Depositions

As noted in TBMP § 707.03(a), some objections to testimony depositions must be raised promptly, or they are waived. The objections, which are waived unless raised promptly, are basically procedural in nature. They include:

• (1) Objections to errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition (waived unless written objection is promptly served on the party giving the notice, in the case of an objection based on improper or inadequate notice, waived unless the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3)  are followed), see TBMP § 707.03(b)(2);
• (2) Objections to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken (waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence);
• (3) Objections based on errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of parties;
• (4) Objections regarding the signing of testimonial deposition transcripts [ Note 1.]; and
• (5) Errors of any kind that might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented (waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition). [ Note 2.] Moreover, notice will not be taken of merely formal or technical objections, unless they were timely raised, and appear to have caused substantial injury to the party raising them. [ Note 3.] This applies not only to errors and irregularities in the taking of a deposition, but also in the form of a deposition transcript (such as, improperly numbered pages or questions, improperly marked exhibits, etc.). [ Note 4.]

Other objections to testimony depositions are not waived for failure to make them during or before the taking of the deposition, provided that the ground for objection is not one that might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time. These objections, which are basically substantive in nature [ Note 5.], include objections:

• (1) to the competency of a witness, or
• (2) to the competency, relevance, or materiality of testimony, or
• (3) that the testimony constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal.

When an objection of this type could not have been obviated or removed if presented at the deposition, the Board will consider it even if the objection is raised for the first time in or with [ Note 6.] a party’s brief on the case. [ Note 7.]

Substantive objections to testimony, that is, objections going to such matters as the competency of a witness, or the competency, relevance, or materiality of testimony, or the asserted hearsay or improper rebuttal nature of the testimony, are not considered by the Board prior to final hearing. [ Note 8.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(c). This is because testimony is taken out of the presence of the Board, and it is the policy of the Board not to read trial testimony, or examine other trial evidence offered by the parties, prior to deliberations on the final decision. See TBMP § 502.01. Further, testimony regularly taken in accordance with the applicable rules ordinarily will not be stricken on the basis of a substantive objection; rather, any such objection (unless waived) will be considered by the Board in its evaluation of the probative value of the testimony at final hearing. [ Note 9.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(c).

Similarly, if the propriety of a procedural objection to a testimony deposition (such as an objection to the form of a question) cannot be determined without reading the deposition, or examining other trial evidence, it generally will not be considered by the Board until final hearing. [ Note 10.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(b)(2).

For the foregoing reasons, the objections described in this section (as opposed to the objection to testimony as late-taken, which may be raised by motion to strike – see TBMP § 533.01 and TBMP § 707.03(b)(1) – and the objection based on improper or inadequate notice of the taking of an oral deposition, which is the subject of the motion to strike procedure described in 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3), and TBMP § 533.02 and TBMP § 707.03(b)(2)), generally should not be raised by motion to strike. Rather, objections should simply be made in writing at the time specified in the rules cited above, or orally "on the record" at the taking of the deposition, as appropriate. These objections, if properly asserted and not waived or rendered moot, normally will be considered by the Board in its determination of the case at final hearing. [ Note 11.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(c).

Additionally, in order to preserve an objection that was seasonably raised during the taking of a testimony deposition, a party should maintain the objection in its brief on the case, as an appendix to its brief on the case or in a separate statement of objections filed with its brief on the case. [ Note 12.] See TBMP § 707.04. However, parties are discouraged from filing objections that are not outcome-determinative or that are duplicative of issues previously raised via a motion to strike. [ Note 13.] If a party advances numerous objections during each testimonial deposition and then renews the objections in a general manner in its brief, the Board may find the general objections insufficient to preserve the individual objections originally made during the testimonial depositions. [ Note 14.]

NOTES:

 1.   See Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1116 (TTAB 2009) (objection that deposition transcripts were not signed waived by failing to timely raise objection – basis for objection could have been cured if objection was raised when the evidence was offered).

 2.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(A), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B). See also Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1070-71 (TTAB 2011) (objection concerning authentication made in brief but not in testimonial deposition procedural in nature and not timely raised; but same exhibits from Internet submitted under notice of reliance authenticated, and even if not submitted under notice of reliance, are admissible as long as witness testifies to general relevance and it is possible to determine the source and date of retrieval); Hornby v. TJX Cos., 87 USPQ2d 1411, 1417 (TTAB 2008) (objection regarding authentication of testimonial deposition exhibits made in brief but not in testimonial deposition itself overruled); Ross v. Analytical Technology Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1269, 1271 n.4 (TTAB 1999) (objection raised for the first time in brief to manner in which testimonial depositions were filed, waived since purported defect could have been cured if promptly raised); Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Life Care Services Corp., 227 USPQ 389, 391 (TTAB 1985) (foundation objections to a survey submitted by opposer raised for the first time in brief waived); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845, 847 (TTAB 1984) (objection on grounds of improper identification or authentication of exhibits waived since defects could have been cured if made during the deposition).

Cf. Miss Nude Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ 729, 731 (TTAB 1976), pet. denied, 198 USPQ 485 (Comm’r 1977) (objection to untimeliness of notice of reliance raised for first time in brief was not waived since defect could not have been cured or remedied).

 3.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(i). See also, e.g., Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845, 847 (TTAB 1984) (regarding technical deficiencies in marking exhibits). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 and, with respect to notices of reliance, Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290, 1292 n.1 (TTAB 1986) (noting precept of Fed. R. Civ. P. 61, Board stated that plaintiff’s failure to serve notice of reliance was not fatal per se to the notice of reliance).

 4.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(g). See, e.g., Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (TTAB 2009) (Board will consider objection regarding improper authentication of documents in deposition, but ruling depends on facts of the case); Tampa Rico Inc. v. Puros Indios Cigars Inc., 56 USPQ2d 1382, 1384 (TTAB 2000) (improperly marked exhibits considered); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845, 847 (TTAB 1984) (Board has discretion to consider improperly marked exhibits).

 5.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j); Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(A); Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 USPQ2d 1260 (TTAB 2003) (objection to the failure of opposer to provide applicant with the notes to which the witness was referring during his testimony was considered substantive, not procedural in nature); Wright Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769, 769 n.4 (TTAB 1985) (objection that testimony is immaterial because it is outside scope of pleading is not waived).

 6.   37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b). Effective January 14, 2017, 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(b)  was amended to clarify and codify current practice that evidentiary objections may be set out in a separate appendix that does not count against the page limit for a brief. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69967 (October 7, 2016). See Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (TTAB 2013) (appropriate evidentiary objections may be raised in appendix or separate submission rather than in text of brief), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (mem.)See Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1789, 1792 (TTAB 1998) (motion to strike trial brief as exceeding page limitation denied where evidentiary objections which were not required to be raised immediately were raised in appendices to the brief rather than in text of brief); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (TTAB 1992) (objections to testimony on grounds including relevance and bias of witness, raised a year after depositions were taken and set out in a separate paper from brief, were not untimely and paper did not result in violation of page limitation for final briefs).

 7.   See Ava Ruha Corp. v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1575, 1579 (TTAB 2015) (based on the witness’ status as CFO and personal knowledge of the records, objection based on lack of personal knowledge under Fed. R. Evid. 602 overruled; Board need not exclude evidence for danger of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403); City National Bank v. OPGI Management GP Inc./Gestion OPGI Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1668, 1674-75 (TTAB 2013) (objection sustained to testimony prior to witness’ employment with respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 602); Swiss Watch International Inc. v. Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, 101 USPQ2d 1731, 1735 (TTAB 2012) (objection sustained because deponents statements regarding information they received from third parties during telephone conversations was inadmissible hearsay); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1072 (TTAB 2011) (objection sustained because purported statements made by employees of retail websites to deponent, and handwritten notes taken by deponent of such statements, are hearsay).

Cf. Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845, 847 (TTAB 1984) (objection on ground of hearsay with no foundation for establishing an exception waived since defect could have been cured if objection was raised during the deposition).

 8.   See, e.g., Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409, 1411 (TTAB 1990) (objections based on relevancy and materiality deferred); Liqwacon Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 203 USPQ 305, 307 n.1 (TTAB 1979) (objections to relevance and materiality of exhibits offered at a deposition deferred); Primal Feeling Center of New England, Inc. v. Janov, 201 USPQ 44, 47-48 (TTAB 1978) (objection on hearsay grounds or that witness offered opinion testimony without adequate foundation deferred); Globe-Union Inc. v. Raven Laboratories Inc., 180 USPQ 469, 471 n.5 (TTAB 1973) (objection to testimony as lacking foundation deferred).

 9.   See RxD Media, LLC v. IP Application Development LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (TTAB 2018) ("the Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected to testimony and evidence, including any inherent limitations"), aff’d, 377 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Va. 2019), aff’d, 986 F.3d 361, 2021 USPQ2d 81 (4th Cir. 2021); Board of Regents, University of Texas System v. Southern Illinois Miners, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1182, 1194 n.19 (TTAB 2014) ("the Board generally does not strike testimony taken in accordance with the applicable rules on the basis of substantive objections; rather, the Board considers such objections when evaluating the probative value of the testimony at final hearing."); Krause v. Krause Publications Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1907 (TTAB 2005) (Board considers substantive objections in evaluating probative value of testimony at final hearing). See also Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1325 (TTAB 1992); Liqwacon Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 203 USPQ 305 (TTAB 1979); Primal Feeling Center of New England, Inc. v. Janov, 201 USPQ 44 (TTAB 1978); Globe-Union Inc. v. Raven Laboratories Inc., 180 USPQ 469 (TTAB 1973).

 10.   See, e.g., Globe-Union Inc. v. Raven Laboratories Inc., 180 USPQ 469, 471 n.5 (TTAB 1973) (objection to testimony as based on leading questions deferred).

 11.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j).

 12.   See Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1928 (TTAB 2011) (objection on the basis that the witness had not been previously disclosed waived where not renewed in main brief and raised for first time in rebuttal brief), aff’d, 188 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 743 F. App’x 457, 128 USPQ2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta International, Inc. v. Anthony’s Pizza Holding Co., 95 USPQ2d 1271, 1273 n.4 (TTAB 2009) (objection to testimony raised in deposition may be maintained in appendix to brief or by separate statement of objections), aff’d, 415 F. App’x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1718 n.25 (TTAB 2007) (objection to deposition exhibit waived because not renewed in trial brief); Wet Seal Inc. v. FD Management Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1632 (TTAB 2007) (objection to testimony waived when not renewed in brief); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 (TTAB 2007) (objection raised at trial waived when petitioner waited until its reply brief to renew objections); Duramax Marine LLC v. R.W. Fernstrum & Co., 80 USPQ2d 1780, 1785 (TTAB 2006) (objection that witness was not a trademark expert not maintained in brief and thus waived); First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1334, 1340 n.14 (TTAB 2005), (objection made in deposition but not renewed in brief deemed waived), rev’d on other grounds, 476 F.3d 867, 81 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Elsea, 56 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 n.5 (TTAB 2000) (objection to exhibit raised during deposition but not maintained in brief deemed waived); Reflange Inc. v. R-Con International, 17 USPQ2d 1125, 1126 n.4 (TTAB 1990) (objections to testimony and exhibits made during depositions deemed waived where neither party raised any objection to specific evidence in its brief); United Rum Merchants Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 218 n.4 (TTAB 1982) (party failed to pursue objection to certain insufficiently identified exhibits introduced at trial in its brief); Donut Shops Management Corp. v. Mace, 209 USPQ 615 (TTAB 1981); Medtronic, Inc. v. Medical Devices, Inc., 204 USPQ 317, 320 n.1 (TTAB 1979) (applicant’s objections to opposer’s main testimony and rebuttal testimony on grounds of hearsay and competency deemed waived where applicant did not repeat the objections in its brief and in fact attempted to use the rebuttal to support its own case); Volkswagenwerk AG v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76, 83 (TTAB 1979) (objections made during depositions but not argued in the briefs were considered to have been dropped); Fischer GmbH. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861, 866 (TTAB 1979); Copperweld Corp. v. Astralloy-Vulcan Corp., 196 USPQ 585, 587 n.3 (TTAB 1977).

 13.   Carefirst of Maryland Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1492, 1495 (TTAB 2005) ("At the oral hearing, pursuant to the Board’s inquiry, counsel indicated that none of the objected-to evidence is outcome determinative. Several of the parties’ objections merely reiterate what was raised in their motions to strike, and, thus, these evidentiary issues have already been handled above in deciding the various motions. … The parties spent an inordinate amount of effort on evidentiary disputes. The gamesmanship during discovery, which then carried over into certain aspects of the trial phase, is breathtaking, and both sides are guilty of participating in this wasteful behavior."), aff’d, 479 F.3d 825, 81 USPQ2d 1919 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cf. Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board is "well equipped to assess the testimony and the degree of accuracy of any subsequent characterization of it without resorting to striking testimony or questions," denying opposer’s objection and motion to strike a question of counsel, asked during a Rule 30(b)(6) discovery deposition, that had been submitted as trial evidence).

 14.   See Starbucks U.S. Brands LLC v. Ruben, 78 USPQ2d 1741, 1747 (TTAB 2006) (sweeping allegations in brief insufficient to preserve individual objections originally made in testimonial deposition).

707.03(c)(2)    Testimony By Affidavit or Declaration

Objections may be made to testimony presented by affidavit or declarations for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence from consideration. [ Note 1.] As with testimony depositions, objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of affidavit or declaration testimony must be raised at the time specified in Rule 32(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ Note 2.] A party need not elect oral cross-examination in order to lodge a substantive objection to testimony by declaration or affidavit; such an objection may be raised by a motion to strike and maintained in the brief, or raised in the brief for the first time. [ Note 3.] Such objections may not be considered until final hearing. [ Note 4.] Further, the Board ordinarily will not strike declaration or affidavit testimony on the basis of a substantive objection if the testimony was taken in accordance with the applicable rules; rather, the Board usually considers the objection upon evaluation of the probative value of the testimony at final hearing. [ Note 5.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(c).

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit."). See, e.g., TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Martin, 128 USPQ2d 1786, 1790-91 (TTAB 2018) (newspaper articles and blog post submitted with no supporting testimony or other evidence are hearsay; "residual hearsay" exception of Fed. R. Evid. 807(a) does not apply); WeaponX Performance Products Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1037 (TTAB 2018) (under circumstances of the case, Board denied opposer’s motion to strike testimony declarations that had been filed and served as exhibits to applicant’s notice of reliance, as doing otherwise would elevate form over substance. "Although the better practice would have been for Applicant to file and serve separately copies of the [witnesses’] testimony declarations, instead of attaching them as exhibits to its notice of reliance, Applicant’s failure to do so is of no consequence."). See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020) (discussing curable vs. noncurable objections to testimony and exhibits (including hearsay, lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation), waiver of objections and timeliness of objections), appeal filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-MHL (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020).

 2.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit. The Office is further amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to provide that objections may not be considered until final hearing."). See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1047 (TTAB 2017) (following well-established Board policy of generally not striking testimony taken in accordance with applicable rules on the basis of substantive objections, and instead considering the objections when evaluating the probative value of the testimony at final hearing, Board overruled objections to declaration testimony based on hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, and irrelevance, and that it is opinion testimony from a nonexpert); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1167 (TTAB 2017) (substantive objection to declaration testimony deferred; such an objection "may be raised by a motion to strike and maintained in the brief, or raised in the brief for the first time.").

 3.   Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1167 (TTAB 2017). See, e.g., Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at.*3 (TTAB 2019) (sustaining objections to declaration testimony based on lack of personal knowledge, insufficient foundation, or impermissible lay opinion testimony; overruling Fed. R. Evid. 1005 objections of both parties); Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, 2019 USPQ2d 370880, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (considering opposer’s objection to declaration testimony regarding witness’ lack of personal knowledge and disregarding testimony not based thereon); Pierce-Arrow Society v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (sustaining objection to portion of declaration opinion testimony beyond witness’ area of expertise and where witness opined on the ultimate disposition of the claim; objection to testimony overruled where the specific statements objected to not identified); Andrusiek v. Cosmic Crusaders LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 222984, at *3 n.8 (TTAB 2019) (failure to seek cross-examination of respondent’s declarant does not preclude petitioner from arguing in his brief that the declarations merit little evidentiary weight).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit. The Office is further amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to provide that objections may not be considered until final hearing."). See Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (Board considers substantive objections in evaluating probative value of testimony at final hearing); Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1047 (TTAB 2017) (same); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1167 (TTAB 2017) (substantive objection to declaration testimony deferred; such an objection "may be raised by a motion to strike and maintained in the brief, or raised in the brief for the first time.").

 5.   Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (the Board generally does not strike testimony taken in accordance with the applicable rules on the basis of substantive objections but considers its probative value at final hearing); Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 460354, at *2-3 (TTAB 2019) (overruling objections based on relevance, unfair prejudice, or misleading nature, noting that Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of testimony and evidence, including any inherent limitations), complaint filed, No. 20-cv-109 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2020); M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd., 2019 USPQ2d 149090, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (whether testimony is supported by other evidence can be considered in determining its weight, but any lack of support does not render it inadmissible; Board is capable of weighing the strength or weakness of objected-to testimony, including any inherent limitations); Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1047 (TTAB 2017) (objections on grounds of hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, irrelevance, and that it constitutes opinion testimony from a non-expert overruled, but Board will weigh the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony, including any inherent limitations).

707.03(c)(3)    Testimony Depositions on Written Depositions

When a deposition is taken on written questions pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.124, written objections to questions (that is, the direct questions, cross questions, redirect questions, and recross questions) may be served on the party propounding the subject questions. A party that serves written objections on a propounding party must also serve a copy of the objections on every other adverse party. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 703.02(g). Objections to questions and answers in depositions on written questions generally are considered by the Board (unless waived) at final hearing. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 703.02(k).

NOTES:

 1.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.124(d)(1).

 2.   See, e.g., Nahshin v. Product Source International LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (TTAB 2013) (objections to portions of depositions on written questions deemed waived), aff’d, 112 F. Supp.3d 383 (E.D. Va. 2015).

707.03(d)    Refusal to Answer Deposition Question

When an objection is made to a question propounded during a testimony deposition, the question ordinarily should be answered subject to the objection. However, a witness may properly refuse to answer a question asking for information that is, for example, privileged, trade secret or otherwise protected from disclosure by the protective order in place for the case. See TBMP § 404.09.

If a deposition is being taken pursuant to a subpoena, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24  and Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and a witness not only objects to, but also refuses to answer, a particular question, the propounding party may obtain an immediate ruling on the propriety of the objection only by the unwieldy process of adjourning the deposition and applying, under 35 U.S.C. § 24, to the federal district court, in the jurisdiction where the deposition is being taken, for an order compelling the witness to answer. See TBMP § 404.09.

There is no mechanism for obtaining from the Board, prior to final hearing, a ruling on the propriety of an objection to a question propounded during a testimony deposition. See TBMP § 404.08 and TBMP § 707.03(c). Accordingly, where the witness in a testimony deposition refuses to answer a particular question, no court action is sought, and the Board finds at final hearing that the objection was not well taken, the Board may presume that the answer would have been unfavorable to the position of the party whose witness refused to answer, or may find that the refusal to answer reduces the probative value of the witness’s testimony. [ Note 1.]

For information concerning a refusal to answer a discovery deposition question, see TBMP § 404.03(a)(2) regarding deposition of non-party residing in the United States, TBMP § 404.08(c) (Objections During Deposition), TBMP § 404.09 (Discovery Depositions Compared to Testimony Depositions), TBMP § 411 (Remedy for Failure to Provide Disclosures or Discovery), and TBMP § 523 (Motion to Compel Disclosures or Discovery).

NOTES:

 1.   See Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505, 510 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (no error in drawing adverse inference where witnesses inappropriately refused to answer relevant questions), aff’g, 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982); Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (TTAB 1993) (where opposer’s objections were found to be not well taken, Board presumed that the answers would have been adverse to opposer’s position); Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409, 1411 (TTAB 1990); Seligman & Latz, Inc. v. Merit Mercantile Corp., 222 USPQ 720, 723 (TTAB 1984); Ferro Corp. v. SCM Corp., 219 USPQ 346, 351 (TTAB 1983); Entex Industries, Inc. v. Milton Bradley Co., 213 USPQ 1116 (TTAB 1982); Data Packaging Corp. v. Morning Star, Inc., 212 USPQ 109, 114 n.5 (TTAB 1981); Donut Shops Management Corp. v. Mace, 209 USPQ 615, 622 n.7 (TTAB 1981); S. Rudofker’s Sons, Inc. v. "42" Products, Ltd., 161 USPQ 499, 499 (TTAB 1969); Bordenkircher v. Solis Entrialgo y Cia., S. A., 100 USPQ 268, 276-278 (Comm’r 1953). Cf. Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92, 144 USPQ 661, 668-69 (CCPA 1965).

707.04    Waiver of Objection

A party may waive an objection to evidence by failing to raise the objection at the appropriate time. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 707.02 and TBMP § 707.03.

For example, an objection to a notice of reliance on the ground that the notice does not comply with the procedural requirements of the particular rule under which it was submitted generally should be raised promptly. If a party fails to raise an objection of this nature promptly, the objection may be deemed waived, unless the ground for objection is one that could not have been cured even if raised promptly. See TBMP § 707.02(b)(1) and TBMP § 707.02(b)(2).

Similarly, an objection to a testimony deposition on the ground that it does not comply with the applicable procedural rules generally is waived if not raised promptly, unless the ground for objection is one which could not have been cured even if raised promptly. See TBMP § 707.03(b)(1) and TBMP § 707.03(c).

On the other hand, objections to a notice of reliance, or to testimony, on substantive grounds, such as, that the proffered evidence constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal, or is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, generally are not waived for failure to raise them promptly, unless the ground for objection is one which could have been cured if raised promptly. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 707.02(c) and TBMP § 707.03(c).

Objections may be made to testimony presented by affidavit or declaration for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence from consideration. [ Note 3.] As with testimony depositions, objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of affidavit or declaration testimony must be raised at the time specified in Rule 32(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ Note 4.] Such objections may not be considered until final hearing. [ Note 5.] Further, the Board ordinarily will not strike affidavit or declaration testimony on the basis of a substantive objection if the testimony was taken in accordance with the applicable rules; rather, the Board usually will consider the objection upon evaluation of the probative value of the testimony at final hearing unless the objection has been waived. [ Note 6.] Cf. TBMP § 707.02(c).

If a party fails to attend a testimony deposition, any objection, which is waived if not made at the deposition, is waived. [ Note 7.]

Additionally, by failing to preserve the objection in its brief on the case, or in an appendix to the brief on the case or in a separate statement of objections filed with the brief on the case, a party may waive an objection that was seasonably raised at trial. [ Note 8.] See TBMP § 707.03(c). However, parties are discouraged from filing objections that are not outcome-determinative or that are duplicative of issues previously raised via a motion to strike. [ Note 9.]

NOTES:

 1.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(i), and 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(A), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B). See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020) (discussing curable vs. noncurable objections to testimony affidavits and exhibits, waiver of objections and timeliness of objections), appeal filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-MHL (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020). See, e.g., Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (objection that evidence was not adequately disclosed in pretrial disclosures overruled as untimely and waived when first raised in trial brief); International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3-7 (TTAB 2020) (when raised for the first time with main brief, objection on the basis of lack of foundation was untimely and waived), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1199-1200, 1207 n.28 (TTAB 2018) (objections deemed waived when first raised in a reply brief ; party estopped from raising procedural objections at final hearing when it failed to timely assert them during the testimony depositions; testimony objections waived when not asserted in or with opening brief; Board considered discovery deposition transcripts that had been untimely filed because adverse party did not object), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022); Coach Services Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 96 USPQ2d 1600, 1603 n.3 (TTAB 2010), aff’d-in-part, rev’d-in-part and remanded on other grounds, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 2.   See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020) (discussing curable vs. noncurable objections to testimony and exhibits (including hearsay, lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation, waiver of objections and timeliness of objections), civil action filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-DJN-EWH (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020). See also Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Taboada, 2020 USPQ2d 10893, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (curable objection to pretrial disclosures deemed waived; should have been made via motion to strike promptly after testimony declaration and exhibits were filed); International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3-7 (TTAB 2020) (objections based on lack of personal knowledge, hearsay and relevance raised for first time in trial brief considered timely and not waived), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *5 (TTAB 2020) (objection to foundation raised for first time in trial brief is untimely because there is no opportunity to cure the alleged defect whether the testimony is by deposition, affidavit or declaration), civil action filed, No. 3:20-cv-00400-DJN-EWH (E.D. Va. June 5, 2020); Hornby v. TJX Companies, 87 USPQ2d 1411, 1417 (TTAB 2008) (objection regarding authentication of testimonial deposition exhibits made in brief but not in testimonial deposition itself overruled – offering party did not have opportunity to provide authenticated testimony in testimonial deposition).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit. The Office is further amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to provide that objections may not be considered until final hearing."). See generally Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10400, at *3-9 (TTAB 2020) (discussing curable vs. noncurable objections to testimony affidavits and exhibits (including hearsay, lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation), waiver of objections and timeliness of objections).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit. The Office is further amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to provide that objections may not be considered until final hearing."); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1167 (TTAB 2017) (substantive objection to declaration testimony deferred; such an objection "may be raised by a motion to strike and maintained in the brief, or raised in the brief for the first time."). See, e.g., Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (sustaining objections to declaration testimony based on lack of personal knowledge, insufficient foundation, or impermissible lay opinion testimony; overruling Fed. R. Evid. 1005 objections of both parties); Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, 2019 USPQ2d 370880, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (considering opposer’s objection to declaration testimony regarding witness’ lack of personal knowledge and disregarding testimony not based thereon); Pierce-Arrow Society v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (sustaining objection to portion of declaration opinion testimony beyond witness’ area of expertise and where witness opined on the ultimate disposition of the claim; objection to declaration testimony overruled where the specific statements objected to not identified); Andrusiek v. Cosmic Crusaders LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 222984, at *3 n.8 (TTAB 2019) (failure to seek cross-examination of respondent’s declarant does not preclude petitioner from arguing in his brief that the declarations merit little evidentiary weight).

 5.   37 C.F.R. § 2.123(j). See MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69965 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to add that objection may be made to receiving in evidence any declaration or affidavit. The Office is further amending renumbered § 2.123(j) to provide that objections may not be considered until final hearing."); Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1167 (TTAB 2017) (substantive objection to declaration testimony deferred; such an objection "may be raised by a motion to strike and maintained in the brief, or raised in the brief for the first time."). With respect to depositions, see also Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (Board considers substantive objections in evaluating probative value of testimony at final hearing). Cf. Krause v. Krause Publications Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1907 (TTAB 2005) (same for depositions).

 6.   See Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (the Board generally does not strike testimony taken in accordance with the applicable rules on the basis of substantive objections but considers its probative value at final hearing); Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 460354, at *2-3 (TTAB 2019) (overruling objections based on relevance, unfair prejudice, or misleading nature, noting that Board is capable of weighing the relevance and strength or weakness of testimony and evidence, including any inherent limitations), complaint filed, No. 20-cv-109 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2020); M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd., 2019 USPQ2d 149090, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (whether testimony is supported by other evidence can be considered in determining its weight, but any lack of support does not render it inadmissible; Board is capable of weighing the strength or weakness of objected-to testimony, including any inherent limitations); Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1047 (TTAB 2017) (objections on grounds of hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, irrelevance, and that it constitutes opinion testimony from a non-expert overruled, but Board will weigh the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony, including any inherent limitations).

 7.   See NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING, 48 Fed. Reg. 23122, 23132 (May 23, 1983); Wright Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769, 770 (TTAB 1985); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845, 847 (TTAB 1984).

 8.   See Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1207 n.28 (TTAB 2018) (testimony objections waived when not asserted in or with opening brief), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022); UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 n.3 (TTAB 2015) (various objections asserted during testimony, including that certain documents introduced at trial were not produced during discovery, which were not maintained in brief were deemed waived); General Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1592 n.7 (TTAB 2011) (objection to testimony deemed waived because it was not maintained in brief) judgment set aside on other grounds, 110 USPQ2d 1679 (TTAB 2014) (non-precedential); Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta International, Inc. v. Anthony’s Pizza Holding Co., 95 USPQ2d 1271, 1273 n.4 (TTAB 2009) (objection to testimony raised in deposition may be maintained in appendix to brief or by separate statement of objections), aff’d, 415 F. App’x 222 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1718 n.25 (TTAB 2007) (objection to deposition exhibit waived because not renewed in trial brief); Wet Seal Inc. v. FD Management Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1632 (TTAB 2007) (objection to testimony waived when not renewed in brief); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1104 (TTAB 2007) (objections raised at trial waived when petitioner waited until its reply brief to renew objections); Duramax Marine LLC v. R.W. Fernstrum & Co., 80 USPQ2d 1780, 1785 (TTAB 2006) (objection that witness was not a trademark expert not maintained in brief and thus waived); First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1334, 1340 n.14 (TTAB 2005) (objection made in deposition but not renewed in brief deemed waived), rev’d on other grounds, 476 F.3d 867, 81 USPQ2d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Hard Rock Café International (USA) Inc. v. Elsea, 56 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 n.5 (TTAB 2000) (objection to exhibit raised during deposition but not maintained in brief deemed waived); Reflange Inc. v. R-Con International, 17 USPQ2d 1125, 1126 n.4 (TTAB 1990) (objections to testimony and exhibits made during depositions deemed waived where neither party raised any objection to specific evidence in its brief); United Rum Merchants Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217, 218 n.4 (TTAB 1982) (party failed to pursue objection to certain insufficiently identified exhibits introduced at trial in its brief); Medtronic, Inc. v. Medical Devices, Inc., 204 USPQ 317, 320 n.1 (TTAB 1979) (applicant’s objections to opposer’s main testimony and rebuttal testimony on grounds of hearsay and competency deemed waived where applicant did not repeat the objections and in fact attempted to use the rebuttal to support its own case); Volkswagenwerk AG v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76, 83 (TTAB 1979) (objections made during depositions but not argued in the briefs were considered to have been dropped); Fischer GmbH v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861, 866 (TTAB 1979); Copperweld Corp. v. Astralloy-Vulcan Corp., 196 USPQ 585, 587 n.3 (TTAB 1977).

 9.   International Dairy Foods Association v. Interprofession du Gruyère, 2020 USPQ2d 10892, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board declined to consider applicants’ over 150 objections), aff’d, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2021 WL 6286234 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); Carefirst of Maryland Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1492, 1495 (TTAB 2005) ("At the oral hearing, pursuant to the Board’s inquiry, counsel indicated that none of the objected-to evidence is outcome determinative. Several of the parties’ objections merely reiterate what was raised in their motions to strike, and, thus, these evidentiary issues have already been handled above in deciding the various motions. … The parties spent an inordinate amount of effort on evidentiary disputes. The gamesmanship during discovery, which then carried over into certain aspects of the trial phase, is breathtaking, and both sides are guilty of participating in this wasteful behavior."), aff’d, 479 F.3d 825, 81 USPQ2d 1919 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Cf. Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Management Services, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 48324, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (Board is "well equipped to assess the testimony and the degree of accuracy of any subsequent characterization of it without resorting to striking testimony or questions," denying opposer’s objection and motion to strike a question of counsel, asked during a Rule 30(b)(6) discovery deposition, that had been submitted as trial evidence).