Trademark Trial and Appeal Board litigation has a reputation for being slow, expensive, and procedurally dense. For brand owners and practitioners alike, the traditional TTAB timeline can feel disproportionate to the commercial realities at stake. Accelerated Case Resolution, commonly referred to as ACR, exists precisely to address that problem. Codified and guided by TBMP 528, ACR provides a flexible framework that allows parties to resolve disputes faster while still obtaining a binding decision from the Board.

Understanding how ACR works, when it is appropriate, and how to structure an ACR agreement is critical for anyone involved in TTAB oppositions or cancellations. When used correctly, ACR can dramatically reduce litigation costs while preserving substantive legal outcomes.

What Is Accelerated Case Resolution Under TBMP 528

Accelerated Case Resolution is not a separate TTAB proceeding. Instead, it is a procedural mechanism that allows parties to modify standard TTAB rules by agreement, subject to Board approval. TBMP 528 makes clear that ACR is party-driven, meaning the Board does not impose it. Both sides must agree to streamline procedures in exchange for a faster path to decision.

At its core, ACR allows parties to limit or eliminate discovery, shorten testimony periods, rely on stipulated facts, or submit the case on briefs and evidentiary declarations alone. The Board still issues a final decision on the merits, which distinguishes ACR from settlement or suspension. This decision carries the same precedential and preclusive effect as a traditional TTAB ruling.

Why the TTAB Encourages ACR in Appropriate Cases

The TTAB has consistently encouraged ACR as a way to reduce backlog and promote efficient resolution of disputes. TBMP 528 reflects this policy preference by giving parties wide latitude to design their own litigation roadmap. For disputes that hinge on narrow legal issues, undisputed facts, or purely documentary evidence, full discovery and testimony often add cost without adding clarity.

ACR is particularly attractive in cases involving likelihood of confusion based on registration records, descriptiveness challenges grounded in dictionary definitions and third party use, or nonuse claims supported by publicly available evidence. In these situations, a streamlined process often produces the same substantive outcome as a full trial but in a fraction of the time.

Common ACR Models Approved by the Board

While TBMP 528 allows flexibility, several ACR models have emerged as best practices. One common approach is briefing-only ACR, where the parties stipulate to the record and submit cross-motions or simultaneous briefs supported by evidence. Another approach uses limited discovery followed by submission of evidence through declarations rather than live testimony.

The Board has also approved hybrid models that retain some traditional procedures while compressing others. For example, parties may agree to limited document requests, eliminate depositions, and shorten briefing schedules. The key is clarity. The Board expects ACR agreements to clearly define what evidence will be submitted, how objections will be handled, and what standards will govern the final decision.

Procedural Requirements and Board Approval

TBMP 528 emphasizes that ACR is not automatic. Parties must jointly request ACR and explain how their proposed procedure will allow the Board to render a fair and complete decision. The Board will not approve an ACR plan that lacks sufficient evidentiary safeguards or fails to address fundamental due process concerns.

Timing also matters. ACR is often proposed early in the case, sometimes during the discovery conference, but it can also be adopted later if both parties agree. However, the later ACR is introduced, the less cost savings it may generate. From a strategic standpoint, early evaluation of whether a case is suitable for ACR is essential.

Strategic Benefits of ACR for Brand Owners

For brand owners, ACR offers predictability. Traditional TTAB proceedings can last several years, during which business uncertainty persists. ACR can produce a final decision in months rather than years, allowing companies to make informed branding and enforcement decisions sooner.

Cost control is another major advantage. By limiting discovery and testimony, parties significantly reduce attorney fees and internal resource burdens. This is especially valuable for startups and growing businesses that need strong brand protection but must remain budget conscious.

Risks and Limitations of Accelerated Case Resolution

Despite its benefits, ACR is not appropriate for every case. Disputes that depend heavily on credibility determinations, extensive marketplace evidence, or complex factual development may suffer under an overly compressed record. TBMP 528 implicitly recognizes this by requiring Board approval and emphasizing the need for a sufficient evidentiary foundation.

Another risk lies in overconfidence. Because ACR often relies on stipulated facts and limited evidence, parties must be realistic about what the record will support. Once the case is submitted, there is little opportunity to supplement or correct deficiencies. Careful front-end planning is critical.

How ACR Fits into a Broader TTAB Litigation Strategy

ACR should not be viewed as a shortcut, but as a strategic tool. In some cases, the willingness to pursue ACR can even encourage settlement by forcing both sides to confront the strengths and weaknesses of their positions early. In others, it allows a party with strong documentary evidence to press for a faster resolution without giving the opponent time to develop marginal arguments.

From a TBMP perspective, ACR reflects the Board’s recognition that not all trademark disputes require the same procedural intensity. When used thoughtfully, it aligns legal process with commercial reality.

Final Thoughts on Using TBMP 528 Effectively

Accelerated Case Resolution under TBMP 528 represents one of the most powerful yet underutilized tools in TTAB practice. It rewards preparation, cooperation, and strategic clarity. For parties willing to engage in disciplined litigation planning, ACR can deliver decisive outcomes without unnecessary delay.

Your brand is everything. Choosing the right procedural path can be just as important as choosing the right legal arguments. Before committing to or rejecting ACR, it is worth evaluating whether a streamlined process could better serve your long-term brand protection goals.

If you are facing a TTAB opposition or cancellation and wondering whether Accelerated Case Resolution makes sense for your case, speaking with experienced trademark counsel early can make all the difference.