Monday, September 21, 2009

TTABlog in the Trenches: a Farrago of TTAB Interlocutory Papers

I was poking around on TTAB Across the Board, looking at the "uncategorized" documents from last week, and decided to post a few of them. None of them is earth-shaking, but then what do you expect? Here's a half-dozen.

Phone Number, Please: "The Board attempted to reach applicant, who is acting pro se in this matter, by phone but no phone number was listed in the opposition or application papers, and the Board was unable to obtain a phone number in an Internet search." Comite Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne v. David Dayan, Opposition No. 91188614.

No Double Correspondence: "[T]he Board will not undertake double correspondence, that is, sending correspondence to two addresses on behalf of a single party." Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International (Shanghai) Corporation, Opposition Nos. 91171146 and 91171147.

Board Participation in Discovery Conference?: Do you ever wonder whether to ask for Board participation in a discovery conference? Here's a report from an interlocutory attorney who conducted a conference, this one involving a pro se applicant. Do you think it's better to have Board participation, or not, when your adversary appears pro se? Tamara Racin v. Barbara Bailey Chapman, Opposition No. 91191285.

Don't File Those Initial Disclosures: "Written disclosures ... should not be filed with the Board except under limited circumstances not presently at issue." Deer Valley Resort Company v. Jamison Frost and Al Barbosa, Opposition No. 91189694 and Cancellation No. 92051018.

Don't File Those Notices of Deposition: "Petitioner is advised that discovery materials, including notices of deposition, should only be filed with the Board in certain situations." The Clarion-Ledger, a division of Gannett River States Publishing Corporation v. Curtis Lyons, Cancellation No. 92049745.

Include Proof of Service with Motion Paper: The Board was forgiving, this time. David J. Deacy v. Pet Yellow Pages, Cancellation No. 92051046.

TTABlog query: Was this posting useful? boring? the latter but not the former? vice-versa? both?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2009.


At 9:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re:Dear Valley Resort Company, it looks like "snail mail" is considered a proper term in TTAB proceedings ...

At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find this type of post to be helpful.

At 7:23 PM, Anonymous paul Reidl said...

Useful, John.

At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

useful and amusing.

At 6:59 PM, Anonymous Josh said...

Very useful.


Post a Comment

<< Home