104 Business to be Conducted in Writing
37 C.F.R. § 2.190(b) Electronic trademark documents. … Documents that relate to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board must be filed electronically with the Board through ESTTA.
37 C.F.R. § 2.191 Action of the Office based on the written record. All business with the Office must be transacted in writing. The action of the Office will be based exclusively on the written record. No consideration will be given to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding when there is disagreement or doubt.
With the exceptions of discovery conferences with Board participation, see TBMP § 401.01, and telephone conferences, see TBMP § 413.01 and TBMP § 502.06, all business with the Board should be transacted in writing. 37 C.F.R. § 2.191. The personal attendance of parties or their attorneys or other authorized representatives at the offices of the Board is unnecessary, except in the case of a pretrial conference as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j), or upon oral argument at final hearing, if a party so desires, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 2.129. Decisions of the Board will be based exclusively on the written record before it. [ Note 1.] Documents filed in proceedings before the Board must be filed through ESTTA. 37 C.F.R. § 2.190(b). See TBMP § 110.01(a).
Board proceedings are conducted in English. If a party intends to rely upon any submissions that are in a language other than English, the party should also file a translation of the submissions. If a translation is not filed, the submissions may not be considered. [ Note 2.]
NOTES:
1. Cf. In re Sovran Fin. Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1537, 1538 (Comm’r 1992) (regarding actions taken by examining attorneys); In re Merck & Co., 24 USPQ2d 1317, 1318 n.2 (Comm’r 1992) (regarding oral representation by Board employee); In re Investigacion Y Desarrollo de Cosmeticos S.A., 19 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Comm’r 1991).
2. See, e.g., Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477 (TTAB 2017) (while translations must be signed by person making translation, they need not be certified to be considered; certification is a suggested better practice); Swiss Watch International Inc. v. Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, 101 USPQ2d 1731, 1734 n.8 (TTAB 2012) (noting that printed publications submitted in a foreign language without translations are of limited probative value); Johnson & Johnson v. Obschestvo s ogranitchennoy; otvetstvennostiu "WDS", 95 USPQ2d 1567, 1570 n.3 (TTAB 2010) (noting that if a party intends to rely at trial on business records in a foreign language, it must provide a translation); Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 (TTAB 1998) (noting that a proffered excerpt from a newspaper or periodical is lacking in foundation and, thus, is not admissible as evidence to the extent that it is unintelligible because it is in a language other than English). See also Lacteos de Honduras S.A. v. Industrias Sula, S. De R.L. de C.V., 2020 USPQ2d 10087, at *6 (TTAB 2020) (for purpose of determining plausibility of allegations in counterclaim, in connection with motion to dismiss, Board did not consider attached exhibits to complaint because they were in Spanish with no English translation provided); Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 2019 USPQ2d 227680, at *1 n.1 (TTAB 2019) (Board noted that petitioner provided testimony declarations with translations from Spanish to English).