The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) plays a critical role in the U.S. trademark system, yet its boundaries are often misunderstood by both new practitioners and brand owners. While it handles a wide range of disputes—ranging from ex parte refusals to contested oppositions and cancellations—there are clear lines the Board cannot cross.

Understanding where the TTAB’s authority ends is essential for litigation strategy. Many parties mistakenly expect the Board to resolve infringement disputes or award damages, only to learn too late that the Board operates under narrow statutory jurisdiction. Knowing the “invisible lines” of the TTAB not only prevents missteps but also helps attorneys position their cases more effectively within the broader intellectual property landscape.

The TTAB Is a Tribunal—Not a Court

At the most basic level, the TTAB is an administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It was created to adjudicate specific trademark matters related to the federal registration system. The Board does not operate under Article III of the Constitution like a federal court; it functions under the authority of the Lanham Act and the USPTO’s procedural framework.

This means the TTAB can only decide questions of registrability. It determines whether a mark is entitled to be registered, maintained, or cancelled. It cannot enforce trademark rights in the marketplace, issue injunctions, or award monetary damages. In that sense, it is not a forum for resolving trademark infringement—even if a dispute touches on use and likelihood of confusion.

Many parties enter TTAB proceedings expecting more than the Board can legally provide. A petitioner may hope to stop a competitor from using a confusingly similar name. An applicant may expect to vindicate their brand against vague infringement claims. But the TTAB doesn’t—and can’t—decide who has the right to use a trademark in commerce. It can only decide who has the right to register it.

What the TTAB Can Decide

Within its defined jurisdiction, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has robust authority. It oversees both ex parte appeals and inter partes proceedings. In ex parte appeals, the Board reviews refusals issued by USPTO Examining Attorneys, often under Section 2(d) (likelihood of confusion), Section 2(e) (descriptiveness), or Section 1 (use in commerce).

In inter partes matters, the Board hears disputes between two or more parties. These include oppositions to pending applications and petitions to cancel existing registrations. The grounds for these disputes vary widely—priority and likelihood of confusion, dilution, fraud, abandonment, genericness, and false association among them.

What makes the TTAB unique is its focus on the registration record. The Board reviews the written record before it—briefs, declarations, discovery responses, notices of reliance, and deposition transcripts. There are no live trials, no juries, and generally no oral testimony. Decisions are rendered by panels of Administrative Trademark Judges based solely on the evidence and arguments presented in writing.

As repeatedly emphasized in TTAB Tips, the Board takes its evidentiary rules seriously. Only properly submitted evidence will be considered. If a party attaches materials to a brief that were never made of record through the appropriate procedural channels, the Board will disregard them—even if they are highly relevant.

What the TTAB Cannot Decide

Despite its important role in trademark law, the TTAB has no jurisdiction over many core issues that arise in branding disputes. The most significant limitation is that the Board cannot decide claims of trademark infringement. It cannot issue injunctions, order parties to stop using marks, or award damages. Its decisions are binding only within the realm of federal trademark registration.

For example, if a party believes a competitor is using a confusingly similar name in a way that harms its brand, the TTAB is not the proper venue for stopping that behavior. A successful opposition or cancellation may block or revoke a federal registration, but it won’t affect the actual use of the mark in the marketplace. For that, parties must go to federal court.

Similarly, the TTAB cannot resolve breach of contract claims, unfair competition allegations, or disputes over domain names. These issues fall outside the Board’s narrow statutory authority and must be pursued through litigation, arbitration, or other administrative bodies.

One particularly confusing area is fraud. While the TTAB can hear claims that a registration was obtained through fraudulent statements to the USPTO, its standard is very high. The Board requires clear and convincing evidence of intentional deception—a burden that is difficult to meet and often more effectively handled in a court of law.

Why Jurisdictional Clarity Matters

Failing to understand the TTAB’s jurisdictional limits can lead to wasted time and resources. If a party mistakenly believes the Board can stop infringement or award damages, they may litigate a case for years without achieving their true objective. Even worse, a registrant may assume that a favorable TTAB decision gives them full rights to enforce a mark in court—only to discover that courts don’t treat TTAB rulings as determinative in infringement cases.

In fact, the Supreme Court in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (2015) held that TTAB decisions on likelihood of confusion can have preclusive effect in federal court, but only if the issues are identical and the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. That’s not always the case, especially when TTAB litigation is based on registration details rather than real-world marketplace use.

For this reason, many attorneys consider the TTAB a tactical venue rather than a final destination. An opposition may be used to slow down a competitor’s application while a broader infringement suit is prepared. A cancellation may be part of a larger strategy to clear the register before launching a new brand. But rarely should TTAB litigation be the only piece of a trademark enforcement plan.

Strategic Takeaways from TTAB Tips

The TTAB Tips issued by the Board make one thing clear: parties that understand the limits of TTAB authority tend to navigate it more successfully. Procedural compliance, accurate pleadings, and realistic expectations are key. Parties should plead only the claims that the Board can decide and must build their evidentiary record carefully within the written confines of the proceeding.

The Board encourages stipulations, procedural agreements, and even Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) to help parties resolve issues efficiently. But it also reminds practitioners that procedural shortcuts do not expand its authority. No amount of strategic creativity can turn the TTAB into a court of law.

Conclusion: Know Your Forum, Shape Your Strategy

The TTAB is an essential piece of the trademark ecosystem, but it was never designed to be a one-stop shop for brand disputes. It cannot enforce rights in commerce, resolve contract disputes, or punish infringers. Its sole function is to determine which marks belong on the Principal and Supplemental Registers.

Understanding that limited but powerful role is key to using the TTAB effectively. If you need to cancel a registration, oppose an application, or appeal a refusal, the Board is the right place to be. But if you want to stop a competitor’s use or collect damages, you’ll need to look beyond the TTAB to federal court.

Smart trademark practitioners don’t just know the rules—they understand the forum. And when it comes to the TTAB, knowing what it can’t do is just as important as knowing what it can.