Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

Precedential No. 6: TTAB Spanks Opposer Who Failed to Serve Initial Disclosures

It seems that any decision involving a violation of the Board's "new" rules (new since 2007) will be labeled "precedential." Well, here's another one. Opposer Dating DNA failed to serve its initial disclosures and so, when it served written discovery on Applicant Imagini, the latter refused to answer, pointing to Rule 2.120(a)(3): "A party must make its initial disclosures prior to seeking discovery...." Because the discovery period had closed, Opposer then moved to re-open discovery and sought an Order compelling Imagini to answer the discovery. No dice, said the Board, procedurally. Dating DNA, LLC v. Imagini Holdings, Ltd., Oppositions Nos. 91185884 and 91191912 (February 22, 2010) [precedential]. Dating DNA feebly claimed that its failure to serve initial disclosures was an "oversight" due to "some clerical error," and that the error was harmless...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on February 24, 2010 (boomark / email).