For brand owners and attorneys alike, pursuing or defending a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is often a high-stakes affair. Whether you’re trying to register a trademark or protect your existing rights, even the strongest legal arguments can be undone by one thing: procedural error. The TTAB, a quasi-judicial body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has a specific set of rules and expectations that practitioners must follow to the letter. Understanding those rules isn’t just helpful—it’s mission-critical.

While the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board provides guidance through its TBMP (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure) and maintains an accessible electronic docketing and filing system, practitioners continue to fall into the same avoidable traps. These errors don’t typically make headlines, but they can quietly and quickly derail an otherwise valid case. This article outlines the most common TTAB missteps and how to steer clear of them, drawing directly from official TTAB tips and internal guidance shared by the Board.

Misusing the ESTTA Filing System

One of the most frequently encountered errors at the TTAB involves improper use of the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). Nearly all submissions to the Board must be filed through ESTTA. Yet, it’s not uncommon for parties—especially newer practitioners—to file documents with the wrong USPTO division or fail to complete necessary components, such as fee payments or required attachments.

Filing pleadings, motions, or notices through TEAS (Trademark Electronic Application System) instead of ESTTA is a particularly damaging mistake. Doing so can result in delays, missed deadlines, or even the Board refusing to consider the filing altogether. ESTTA assigns tracking numbers to each submission, so always verify that the document appears in TTABVUE, the Board’s docketing system, shortly after uploading.

Ignoring the Email Service Requirements

Since the 2017 amendments to the Trademark Rules, the TTAB has moved almost entirely to email-based service. Plaintiffs no longer need to serve complaints directly—service is effected when the Board sends its notice of institution. However, all other documents must be served via email unless the parties have specifically agreed to an alternate method. Despite this clarity, many practitioners continue to rely on outdated mailing procedures or assume that ESTTA-generated confirmation emails suffice for service purposes.

The Board has been clear: ESTTA notices do not replace the requirement for proper service. Failure to serve opposing counsel via the correct method can result in motions being stricken or ignored, creating unnecessary setbacks.

Late Filings and Missed Deadlines

The TTAB operates on tight procedural timelines. Deadlines for pleadings, disclosures, discovery, and trial submissions are non-negotiable unless a party seeks and is granted an extension or suspension. Unfortunately, many parties underestimate how strictly the Board enforces these timeframes.

For example, filing a brief late in an ex parte appeal cannot be cured with a petition to revive. Similarly, waiting too long to file a motion to compel discovery—especially beyond the deadline for pretrial disclosures—can leave a party without any recourse. In general, requests to extend deadlines must demonstrate good cause, while motions to reopen already-missed deadlines must meet the more stringent “excusable neglect” standard.

TTAB tips repeatedly stress the importance of docketing all deadlines and submitting filings well in advance to account for technical issues or unexpected delays. The Board rarely grants leniency for oversight or last-minute difficulties with ESTTA, so preemptive planning is essential.

Mishandling Pleadings and Defenses

Another common trap involves the drafting of complaints, answers, and affirmative defenses. The Board expects complaints to clearly lay out each legal claim, such as likelihood of confusion or dilution, using the statutory language. Vague assertions, improper incorporation of extraneous issues like infringement, or relying on exhibits without making them part of the trial record can seriously weaken a plaintiff’s position.

On the defense side, boilerplate affirmative defenses like “failure to state a claim” or “unclean hands” are routinely struck unless properly supported. Additionally, defenses such as laches or acquiescence are limited in applicability, especially in opposition proceedings involving pending applications. Including them without a factual basis only invites a motion to strike.

Perhaps the most costly error is failing to make your own registration of record when alleging it as the basis for a claim. The TTAB won’t automatically take judicial notice of other USPTO records, so it’s vital to properly submit copies of any cited registrations using TSDR or TESS printouts.

Overstepping Discovery Limits

Discovery in TTAB proceedings is more constrained than in federal court. Parties are limited to 75 interrogatories, 75 document requests, and 75 requests for admission. Each subpart counts toward that total. Yet some parties send excessive or duplicative discovery requests without checking their totals, leading to objections and delays.

Additionally, discovery requests must be served early enough to allow responses before the close of the discovery period. A miscalculated timeline can result in discovery responses becoming inadmissible, which could be fatal to a party’s ability to present its case effectively. The TTAB also expects parties to make initial disclosures before engaging in formal discovery—another often-overlooked rule.

Failing to supplement disclosures or to provide complete responses can also lead to sanctions. If information or documents aren’t produced during discovery, the party may be precluded from using them at trial. The Board is strict about this, and it often refuses to admit evidence that could have been timely disclosed.

Inadequate Use of Evidence

Evidence can only be submitted during designated periods, such as during the trial phase or in accordance with the rules for summary judgment. Submitting evidence as exhibits to motions or briefs outside the trial period—without a motion for remand or agreement by the parties—is a frequent error. Evidence attached to a brief that wasn’t already part of the record will be disregarded.

Similarly, simply linking to a website or referencing a registration by serial number is not sufficient to make it of record. The TTAB demands proper documentation with clear URLs and access dates for internet evidence, and full copies or electronic printouts for registrations. Procedural compliance in evidence submission is just as important as substance.

How to Stay Ahead of the Curve

Avoiding these TTAB traps requires more than basic familiarity with trademark law. It demands a solid understanding of Board procedure and an unwavering commitment to detail. The TBMP is an essential reference, and the TTAB tips shared by Board attorneys and judges offer a candid look into what truly matters.

Diligence, preparation, and procedural precision are not optional—they’re what keep your case alive. The best strategy is to treat TTAB proceedings with the same seriousness as litigation in federal court. Because, in many ways, that’s exactly what they are.