Litigating before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) brings its own set of procedural and strategic challenges. But when the opposing party is a pro se litigant—an individual or business representing themselves without an attorney—those challenges can escalate in complexity. While TTAB proceedings are designed to be more streamlined than federal court litigation, they still require strict adherence to rules of practice and evidence. For attorneys facing an unrepresented adversary, the task becomes one of balancing assertive advocacy with procedural clarity, patience, and ethical restraint.

This scenario is increasingly common. With growing access to online trademark application tools and widespread misunderstandings about how trademark rights are enforced, more individuals are choosing—or attempting—to handle TTAB matters on their own. The TTAB Tips highlight some of the pitfalls that arise when one party lacks legal representation, and they emphasize the Board’s expectation that attorneys act professionally and help facilitate procedural fairness—even when the other side is unprepared or confused.

Why Pro Se Representation Complicates TTAB Practice

Pro se litigants often misunderstand what the TTAB does—and what it doesn’t. Many equate the TTAB with a traditional courtroom, expecting live testimony, dramatic hearings, and leeway in their filings. Others are unaware of their obligations to make disclosures, serve documents correctly, or introduce evidence in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice. These misunderstandings can derail proceedings and create delays, particularly during the discovery phase or when motion practice begins.

The TTAB has made efforts to accommodate unrepresented parties through public resources, FAQs, and simplified guides, but these tools rarely compensate for the experience and strategy that licensed counsel brings. As a result, when one party is represented and the other is not, the likelihood of missed deadlines, improper filings, or defective pleadings increases significantly.

Counsel’s Responsibility When Opposing a Pro Se Party

Attorneys have a dual responsibility in these cases: to zealously represent their client while not taking advantage of the opposing party’s lack of legal sophistication. This does not mean offering legal advice to the pro se party, but it does mean complying fully with TTAB procedural rules and ensuring proper service, notice, and clear communication.

For instance, an attorney should never assume that the Board’s automatic notices fulfill their own obligation to serve discovery responses or motions. In fact, TTAB Tips reiterate that ESTTA filings do not substitute for service, especially after the complaint has been filed. This is a key point that many unrepresented parties fail to understand—and that attorneys must not exploit.

It is also advisable to keep communication clear and professional at all times. Pro se parties may misinterpret legal terminology or procedural directives. If a discovery conference is required, counsel should consider requesting Board participation via an Interlocutory Attorney. This helps ensure the pro se party receives accurate information and can mitigate disputes before they arise.

Discovery with a Pro Se Opponent

Discovery can be one of the most frustrating parts of TTAB practice when the opposing party is not represented. Pro se litigants may object to every question without basis, respond late (or not at all), or fail to understand their duty to supplement responses. The Board expects parties to make a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes before seeking intervention. That standard doesn’t relax simply because one party is unrepresented.

Practitioners should meticulously document their efforts to confer, clarify deficiencies, and provide deadline reminders. A clear paper trail showing good-faith attempts to educate and resolve disputes will strengthen any eventual motion to compel—or a request for sanctions.

At the same time, it’s crucial to avoid overly technical or adversarial tactics that could backfire. The Board is unlikely to view aggressive discovery gamesmanship favorably, especially when it appears calculated to confuse or intimidate a pro se party.

Settlement Discussions and Procedural Fairness

Negotiating settlement with a pro se litigant can raise delicate ethical questions. Attorneys must never imply that they represent both parties or pressure the opposing party into agreement by misrepresenting the strength of their case. Even seemingly casual language in emails can be interpreted as coercive or misleading.

If a settlement agreement is reached, counsel should draft clear, plain-language documents that accurately reflect the negotiated terms. The TTAB may require explicit statements of abandonment or withdrawal for the case to be dismissed, and it will not enforce private settlement terms not submitted on the record. Practitioners should also take care that stipulations—whether related to suspension, deadlines, or evidence—are clearly worded and agreed to in writing.

Motion Practice and Defaults

Pro se parties are more likely to miss deadlines, fail to respond to motions, or submit improper filings. While this often results in default judgments or waivers, the Board may be more lenient with unrepresented litigants, particularly in the early stages. For example, if a motion to strike or dismiss is filed based on procedural defects, the TTAB may allow the pro se party to amend their pleading or respond late—especially if the delay appears unintentional.

Counsel should be prepared for potential delays and to educate clients on the likelihood that the Board may grant some leeway to the opposing party. That said, repeated failures to comply with rules or orders will not be tolerated indefinitely. By maintaining professionalism, providing clear notice, and allowing reasonable extensions when appropriate, attorneys can preserve their credibility with the Board while still advancing their client’s case.

Leveraging TTAB Resources

Attorneys handling cases against pro se parties should make full use of the TTAB’s support tools. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP), TTABVUE, and TTAB Tips offer invaluable insights into procedural handling and what the Board expects from counsel in these situations. In particular, the Board participation in discovery conferences is strongly encouraged when one party is unrepresented. Taking advantage of this offer can clarify early misunderstandings and help set expectations for the case timeline.

Final Thoughts

Facing a pro se litigant before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may seem like an advantage on paper, but in reality, it often demands greater preparation, clearer communication, and more proactive case management. Counsel must walk a careful line between strong advocacy and procedural fairness. By staying grounded in TTAB rules, using Board resources effectively, and documenting all communication and deadlines meticulously, attorneys can protect their clients while also supporting a fair and orderly proceeding.

In the end, managing a TTAB case with an unrepresented party isn’t just about “winning” by default—it’s about ensuring the integrity of the process and demonstrating the professionalism expected by the Board. With that approach, both the case and the client are better served.