Practicing before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is a blend of legal strategy and procedural rigor. While strong arguments and persuasive evidence matter, many cases are won—or quietly lost—based on how well attorneys follow the rules. As the TTAB continues to modernize its systems and apply increasingly strict compliance expectations, the smallest misstep can snowball into missed deadlines, waived arguments, or default judgments.

In this environment, success isn’t just about being right; it’s about being exact. Mastering TTAB practice means mastering the process. This article draws from the July 2020 TTAB Tips shared by Administrative Trademark Judges and Interlocutory Attorneys, offering insight into why procedural precision is more than just good form—it’s a tactical advantage.

The TTAB Is Not Forgiving When It Comes to Procedure

Unlike federal courts, the TTAB operates under strict regulatory guidance rooted in the Trademark Rules of Practice. These rules are precise, and the Board expects practitioners to know them. For instance, failure to file a brief on time in an ex parte appeal cannot be corrected by a petition to revive. If you miss the deadline, your appeal may be dismissed. Similarly, submitting new evidence with an appeal brief is impermissible unless you’ve formally requested a remand. These aren’t just technicalities—they’re case-enders.

Timelines and page limits are enforced without exception. Appeal briefs are capped at 25 pages, reply briefs at 10. Motions follow similar rules. Even when parties agree to extend a deadline, the Board will not honor it unless it’s properly filed and justified. Procedural flexibility is limited—and misjudging this can cost your client dearly.

Service and Filing: Where Errors Begin

The shift to electronic filing through ESTTA has made submissions more efficient, but it has also created new areas for error. One common mistake is assuming that the system-generated ESTTA receipt is a substitute for proper service in inter partes cases. It’s not. Except for the initial complaint, all submissions must be served on the other party—typically by email. Failing to do so, or failing to document that you did, can render your filing ineffective.

Another area where practitioners get tripped up is filing through the wrong system. Submitting an amendment to an opposed application through TEAS instead of ESTTA, for example, means the Board won’t consider it. And if you’re trying to oppose an application filed under the Madrid Protocol, be careful: your notice of opposition cannot be amended after filing. Whatever grounds and goods you list on the ESTTA cover sheet are locked in. These are the kinds of TTAB tips that seem minor until they become fatal.

Discovery: Timely, Targeted, and Thoughtful

Discovery before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board operates under specific constraints. Interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission are each limited to 75. If you’re not counting carefully—or if your “subparts” are poorly drafted—you may find the Board refusing to compel responses beyond the limit.

Discovery timing is equally unforgiving. Discovery requests must be served early enough to allow responses before the close of the discovery period. Serving them too late, even by a day, is a procedural violation that cannot be cured without Board approval. Moreover, failing to timely respond can result in waiving objections—or in the case of requests for admission, automatic admission.

These aren’t hypothetical issues. TTAB decisions routinely reference discovery blunders that result in evidence exclusion or sanctions. When one party claims it never received initial disclosures or that metadata wasn’t properly requested, the Board expects documentation and procedural adherence. Discovery is no longer an informal back-and-forth; it’s a high-stakes stage where precision counts.

Making Evidence of Record—The Right Way

One of the most repeated TTAB tips is that evidence must be properly introduced. The Board does not take judicial notice of its own databases. Submitting a list of third-party registrations, or a summary of search results, is not enough. You must submit complete copies, typically from TESS or TSDR, with appropriate labeling and dates. The same applies to Internet evidence—it must show both the URL and the access or print date, or it may be disregarded.

Practitioners often attempt to attach exhibits to their briefs, hoping to bolster their arguments. But evidence attached to a brief—unless already of record—is untimely. Worse, it creates confusion and delay. The TTAB has made it clear: the record should be complete before an appeal is filed. If you need to add something, request a remand. Otherwise, don’t expect the Board to fix your mistake.

Settlements, Stipulations, and Suspensions

Another overlooked area is case suspension. The Board generally encourages settlement and will grant suspensions for ongoing negotiations—but only if the parties request it properly. A vague reference to settlement in a motion to extend deadlines, without showing progress or stipulating to the terms, may be rejected. Multiple extensions filed without updates can trigger a Board directive demanding details. Procedural slack is not a given—even in the name of compromise.

Likewise, parties often forget that stipulations can be powerful tools for procedural efficiency. Whether stipulating to limited discovery, agreeing on admissibility of evidence, or adopting Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), these agreements can simplify litigation and reduce costs. But they must be done right—filed with the Board, clearly worded, and within the framework of the rules.

The Final Stretch: Motions, Defaults, and Extensions

As a case progresses, precision becomes even more important. Missing an answer deadline, for example, doesn’t automatically result in a default judgment—but it does require immediate corrective action. You can’t just call the Board to explain; you need a motion, possibly a stipulation, and often a compelling explanation.

Similarly, extensions are granted based on good cause—or excusable neglect if the deadline has passed. If you’re requesting more time, especially for pretrial or trial periods, the Board expects specificity: why you need it, how much time you’re requesting, and what’s happened so far. Vague or repetitive extension requests will be denied. And once denied, you may find yourself with no opportunity to present evidence or rebut the opposing party’s claims.

TTAB Practice Rewards the Diligent

The most successful practitioners before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board aren’t necessarily the ones with the flashiest arguments—they’re the ones who respect the rules. They check TTABVUE regularly, file through ESTTA properly, serve all documents, track deadlines with discipline, and maintain procedural awareness at every stage. They know when to push forward, when to stipulate, and when to ask for help—from the Board or from experienced counsel.

Every TTAB tip, from Internet evidence formatting to remand procedures, is a reminder that details matter. In trademark litigation, where rights to a brand, a business, or a reputation may hang in the balance, it’s not just what you argue—it’s how you move the case forward. Procedural precision isn’t just compliance; it’s strategy.