In its most recent decision citable as precedent, Kairos Institute of Sound Healing, LLC v. Doolittle Gardens, LLC, Opposition No. 91181945 (October 17, 2008), the TTAB denied the applicant's request to dismiss an opposition for the opposer's failure to timely provide its initial disclosures.
The applicant asserted that the proper remedy was the entire dismissal of the opposition, under Trademark Rule 2.120 (g)(1). The opposer responded that the failure to disclose was not intentional, and eventually did provide the disclosures, albeit after the deadline.
The Board pointed out that Rule 2.120 (g)(1) refers to a situation in which a party's failure to provide disclosures follows an order by the Board "affirming or reiterating the party's obligation to make such disclosures." The case at issue had not yet reached the point where the Board issued an order compelling the opposer to make its disclosures.
On the other hand, Rule 2.120(g)(2) does allow sanctions to be given when a party fails to provide the required disclosures, but only when that party confirms that the disclosures will not be made. Since no such statement was made by the opposer in this case, Rule 2.120(g)(2) did not apply. Similarly, Rule 2.120(g)(1) was not applicable because the Board had not yet made any order compelling the disclosures.
In so ruling, the Board made clear that neither the Rules themselves, nor the scheduling order issued but the Board setting the parties' deadlines (including the deadline for disclosures) is sufficient to trigger sanctions under Rule 2.120(g)(1). Rather, a motion to compel is the appropriate remedy, and must be made before the Board will issue an order that, if not complied with, will invoke the provisions of Rule 2.120(g)(1). In this case, the applicant would only have needed to have a motion to compel granted by the Board, which, if not complied with by the opposer, would have enabled the applicant to move for sanctions.
Vol. 53, June 2010