When parties think of winning before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), most envision airtight legal arguments and rock-solid evidence. But what often separates a drawn-out, costly dispute from a streamlined, strategic success is something far less dramatic: stipulations. Procedural agreements between parties—if used effectively—can dramatically shape the course, cost, and outcome of TTAB proceedings.

While many practitioners focus their energy on preparing aggressive pleadings or defensive discovery tactics, those with the sharpest TTAB strategies recognize the quiet power of stipulating early, clearly, and with intent. These agreements can simplify litigation, eliminate unnecessary steps, and even open the door to Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR), which offers faster, more cost-effective paths to a decision.

Understanding Stipulations in the TTAB Context

In TTAB practice, a stipulation is a mutual agreement between the parties about how to handle a specific aspect of the proceeding. This can involve anything from agreeing on facts to be accepted without proof, to modifying discovery obligations, to consenting to how certain evidence may be submitted. These procedural tools are not merely convenient; when thoughtfully applied, they can become pivotal in shaping the scope and speed of litigation.

Stipulations are recognized and encouraged by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In fact, the TTAB Tips published by the Board in July 2020 explicitly highlight the flexibility and advantages of procedural stipulations, particularly in the context of ACR. The Board has made it clear that it not only allows but welcomes creative stipulations that help parties resolve cases efficiently.

Why Procedural Agreements Matter

TTAB litigation is often compared to federal civil litigation—but with important distinctions. The Board only decides questions related to the registrability of marks, and does not adjudicate questions of infringement or award monetary relief. Given this limited scope, parties frequently find themselves spending substantial time and resources on procedural steps that, if streamlined, could bring about swifter resolutions.

This is where stipulations become powerful. By mutually agreeing to limit discovery, waive certain evidentiary formalities, or submit cases on briefs and agreed facts, parties can reduce the burden of litigation while preserving their core legal arguments. In many cases, procedural agreements help each side maintain control over litigation costs and minimize the procedural wrangling that can stretch a proceeding into years.

More importantly, stipulations can allow both parties to focus on the real dispute: whether one party’s trademark should be registered or maintained. This helps the Board, too, by narrowing the factual and legal issues it needs to resolve.

How Stipulations Unlock Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR)

One of the most compelling reasons to use procedural agreements is to access Accelerated Case Resolution. ACR is an alternative to a full trial, where the Board renders a final decision based on the parties’ stipulations, agreed facts, and submitted evidence—essentially functioning like a bench trial in federal court.

The TTAB Tips make it clear that ACR is highly flexible. It can involve stipulations to facts, admissibility of evidence, and submission formats. The earlier in a proceeding ACR is discussed and adopted, the more benefits it yields. Parties can agree to submit trial briefs with attached evidence, eliminating depositions and testimony periods. Others may choose to rely on summary judgment materials or stipulate to undisputed facts that form the crux of the legal issues.

What’s critical is that both parties must consent to ACR. Once agreed upon, the Board can resolve genuine disputes of material fact without the need to find that no factual issues exist—a major distinction from summary judgment. The efficiency gains are substantial, often shaving months off the case timeline.

Real-World Examples of Effective Stipulations

Consider a scenario where two parties are in a cancellation proceeding. One party challenges the validity of a registered mark based on abandonment. Instead of engaging in prolonged discovery to determine the registrant’s use of the mark, the parties could stipulate to the registrant’s sales figures and marketing history. They might agree to submit business records in lieu of depositions and limit the briefing to 20 pages each.

This type of procedural cooperation allows both parties to avoid unnecessary costs while still positioning their strongest legal arguments before the Board. At the same time, it frees the TTAB from having to review thousands of pages of discovery, helping ensure a quicker decision.

The TTAB has cited several cases in which procedural stipulations helped bring about resolution with speed and clarity. In TPI Holdings, Inc. v. TrailerTrader.com, LLC, for instance, the parties’ stipulation allowed the Board to bypass standard trial procedures and resolve a factual dispute based on the agreed record. This kind of efficiency benefits not just the parties but the Board itself, which is under constant pressure to manage a large docket.

Best Practices for Crafting Stipulations

While stipulations are powerful, they must be drafted with care. Vague or overly broad stipulations can backfire if the parties later disagree on their interpretation. It is essential to define the scope and purpose of each stipulation clearly. If stipulating to the admissibility of evidence, for example, be precise about which documents are included, how they may be used, and whether objections to their weight or relevance are preserved.

Equally important is ensuring the stipulation is filed with the Board and included in the case record. Oral agreements or email chains, if not formalized through proper filing, may not carry legal weight.

Practitioners should also remember that stipulations are not just for settlement. While many agreements arise in the context of resolving or narrowing disputes, procedural stipulations are equally valuable during discovery, motion practice, and trial preparation. They can be used to agree on deposition formats, modify deadlines, or clarify points of contention before they escalate.

Conclusion: A Smarter Path to Resolution

Winning before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board isn’t always about overpowering your opponent—it’s often about outmaneuvering them procedurally. Stipulations give practitioners a tactical advantage, allowing them to focus resources where they matter most while sidestepping procedural bottlenecks.

For attorneys looking to elevate their TTAB practice, the July 2020 TTAB Tips serve as a valuable reminder that effective litigation isn’t always about confrontation. Sometimes, the smartest move is collaboration—on your terms, and in your client’s best interest. By strategically embracing stipulations, you’re not just playing by the rules—you’re shaping the game.