Introduction

Litigating before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) often involves extensive discovery, tight deadlines, and strict adherence to procedural rules. While depositions, interrogatories, and document requests receive much of the spotlight, one tool that can dramatically simplify a case is often overlooked: the Request for Admissions. Properly used, this discovery device can narrow disputed issues, establish key facts, and streamline trial preparation. In fact, seasoned practitioners often rely on admissions as a cornerstone of their strategy, making them one of the most valuable TTAB tips for efficient litigation.

What Are Requests for Admissions?

A Request for Admissions (RFA) is a discovery tool under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, made applicable in TTAB proceedings. Unlike interrogatories or requests for production, which seek new information or documents, RFAs require the opposing party to admit or deny specific facts, the authenticity of documents, or the truth of statements. Because the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board operates with a relatively narrow jurisdiction focused on registrability rather than infringement, well-crafted admissions can cut directly to the heart of the dispute.

For example, an opposer in a likelihood of confusion case may serve RFAs asking the applicant to admit that the marks are visually similar, or that the applicant’s goods move in the same trade channels as the opposer’s. While the applicant may deny these statements, forcing them to take a position early can shape the trajectory of the case. Similarly, RFAs can confirm authenticity of documents, allowing them to be introduced later through a notice of reliance without additional evidentiary battles.

Narrowing the Issues in TTAB Proceedings

One of the greatest advantages of RFAs is their ability to narrow issues for trial. TTAB cases can involve a range of complex factual disputes, from priority dates to fame of a mark. If parties can reach agreement or at least narrow disagreement through admissions, the trial phase becomes more focused and efficient.

For instance, rather than proving that a trademark registration belongs to a party through witness testimony, an RFA can secure that admission early, avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence. Similarly, RFAs can be used to lock in undisputed background facts, such as the date a registration issued or whether a party has abandoned certain claims. By securing these points, practitioners free up time and resources to focus on contested issues that will actually decide the case.

Establishing Authenticity of Documents

Another strategic use of RFAs lies in authenticating documents. Under TTAB practice, documents must often be introduced into the record through a notice of reliance. But before they can be admitted, authenticity may need to be established. RFAs offer a shortcut. By requesting that the opposing party admit the authenticity of key documents such as marketing materials, sales records, or prior trademark registrations, a practitioner ensures that those documents can be introduced without unnecessary procedural wrangling.

This approach not only streamlines the evidentiary process but also prevents surprises. Without admissions, parties may find themselves scrambling to authenticate documents at the last minute, wasting valuable trial time. The TTAB itself has emphasized the usefulness of RFAs for this purpose, making this one of the most practical TTAB tips available.

Forcing Strategic Choices

Requests for Admissions also serve a tactical function. When a party denies a fact that later proves to be true, it risks credibility with the Board. More importantly, under Rule 37(c), a party that unjustifiably denies a request may be required to pay expenses if the opposing side later proves the matter at trial. This creates pressure to admit indisputable facts, even when they may not be favorable. In TTAB litigation, where credibility and efficient fact-finding are paramount, this dynamic can significantly impact case strategy.

For example, if an applicant denies that its goods are “beverages” despite evidence to the contrary, the opposer can later highlight this denial as an unreasonable position, undermining the applicant’s credibility. Practitioners should therefore use RFAs not only to gain admissions but also to test the opposing party’s willingness to take risky stances.

Timing Considerations

The timing of RFAs is crucial. Serving them too late in the discovery period may limit their usefulness, as responses might not be available in time to shape follow-up discovery. Serving them early, however, allows parties to tailor interrogatories and depositions around the responses. Many TTAB practitioners recommend serving RFAs soon after receiving document production, since the admissions can authenticate those materials for later use.

Because discovery closes before the trial periods begin, careful scheduling ensures that RFAs play their intended role in shaping the case. If admissions are secured before trial, parties can then use the notice of reliance procedure to introduce the requests and responses into the record, creating a streamlined evidentiary foundation.

Avoiding Overuse and Abuse

Despite their utility, RFAs must be used strategically. Overloading the opposing party with hundreds of unnecessary requests can backfire, as the Board may view such tactics as harassment. The goal should be precision: target admissions that either narrow key issues, authenticate important documents, or expose strategic weaknesses in the opposing party’s case.

It is also important to avoid phrasing admissions in a way that invites ambiguity. Poorly worded requests may lead to vague or qualified denials, which do little to advance the case. Instead, practitioners should craft clear, concise requests that leave little room for evasion.

Practical TTAB Tips for Using RFAs

One practical TTAB tip is to coordinate RFAs with other discovery tools. For example, serve interrogatories that request detailed explanations for any denials made in response to RFAs. This forces the opposing party not only to deny but also to justify its position, providing valuable insight into its case strategy. Another tip is to serve RFAs designed to lock in facts that the opposing party has already conceded in correspondence or prior filings. By turning informal acknowledgments into formal admissions, you strengthen your evidentiary record.

Finally, practitioners should remember to use RFAs affirmatively during trial. If key facts are admitted during discovery, highlight them in trial briefs to reinforce the strength of your case. Admissions are binding and can be powerful tools for persuasion when properly integrated into arguments before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Conclusion

Requests for Admissions are far more than a routine discovery device in TTAB litigation, they are a strategic weapon. By narrowing issues, authenticating documents, and forcing the opposing party to make strategic choices, RFAs can simplify proceedings and strengthen a party’s position at trial. For practitioners looking to gain an edge before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, mastering the use of admissions is one of the most effective TTAB tips available.

When thoughtfully drafted and strategically deployed, RFAs save time, reduce costs, and enhance the clarity of a case, ensuring that the focus remains where it should: on the central questions that determine registrability.