82 FR 33804 - Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice; Clarification

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 139 (July 21, 2017)

Page Range		33804-33806
FR Document		2017-15346
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2016 a final rule, which became effective on January 14, 2017, revising the Rules of Practice before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This document clarifies certain provisions of the rules of practice regarding the deadlines for filing motions to compel discovery, motions to test the sufficiency of responses or objections to requests for admission, and motions for summary judgment. The clarification promotes clarity and reflects ongoing and current practice, in keeping with the goals of efficiency and predictability in the procedure and process of trial cases.
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33804-33806]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15346]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. PTO-T-2017-0025]
RIN 0651-AD22


Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules 
of Practice; Clarification

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') 
published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2016 a final rule, 
which became effective on January 14, 2017, revising the Rules of 
Practice before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. This document 
clarifies certain provisions of the rules of practice regarding the 
deadlines for filing motions to compel discovery, motions to test the 
sufficiency of responses or objections to requests for admission, and 
motions for summary judgment. The clarification promotes clarity and 
reflects ongoing and current practice, in keeping with the goals of 
efficiency and predictability in the procedure and process of trial 
cases.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Butler, Trademark Trial and 
Appeal Board, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 
(571) 272-4259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO issues this final rule to clarify 
the latest time in an inter partes proceeding that certain motions may 
be filed. The USPTO's October 7, 2016 final rule revising the Trademark 
Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice (81 FR 69950) (published under 
RIN 0651-AC35), effective January 14, 2017, required that any motion to 
compel discovery, Sec.  2.120(f)(1), motion to test the sufficiency of 
responses or objections to requests for admission, Sec.  2.120(i)(1), 
or motion for summary judgment, Sec.  2.127(e)(1), be filed prior to 
the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as 
set or as reset. The USPTO now amends the rules of practice to make 
clear that such motions must be filed before the day of the deadline 
for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally 
set or as reset.
    The amendments promote clarity in the regulations and further the 
objectives of the January 14, 2017 final rule. They advance the goals 
of efficiency of inter partes proceedings by streamlining discovery and 
pretrial procedure, particularly by signaling that the trial phase of 
the proceedings commences with the deadline for the first pretrial 
disclosure, by which juncture all discovery disputes will have been 
resolved or at least brought to the attention of the Board and all 
parties.

Discussion of Rule Changes

Discovery

    The USPTO is amending the third sentence of Sec.  2.120(f)(1) to 
indicate that a motion to compel discovery must be filed before the day 
of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period 
as originally set or as reset.
    The USPTO is amending the first sentence of Sec.  2.120(i)(1) to 
indicate that a motion to determine and test the sufficiency of an 
answer or objection to a request for admission must be filed before the 
day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony 
period as originally set or as reset.

Motions

    The USPTO is amending the second sentence of Sec.  2.127(e)(1) to 
indicate that a motion for summary judgment must be filed before the 
day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony 
period as originally set or as reset.

Rulemaking Considerations

    Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking 
involve rules of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive 
rules. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans 
Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies 
interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow Communications 
Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an 
application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure 
Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 
2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not 
change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).
    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for 
the rule changes are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), 
or any other law. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 
1206 (2015) (Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an 
agency

[[Page 33805]]

``issue[s] an initial interpretive rule'' nor ``when it amends or 
repeals that interpretive rule.''); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 
F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and 
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), does not require notice and comment rulemaking 
for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (quoting 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(A))).
    Similarly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness is not applicable 
because this rule is not a substantive rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). As 
discussed above, this rulemaking involves rules of agency practice and 
procedure, merely consisting of clarifications to the procedure and 
timing of filing certain motions in inter partes proceedings. These 
changes are procedural in nature and will have no impact on the 
substantive evaluation of a trademark application or registration.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy General Counsel for General 
Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. See Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b).
    This rulemaking involves changes to a rule of agency practice and 
procedure in matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The 
changes provide greater clarity as to certain deadlines in Board 
proceedings. This rule does not alter any substantive criteria used to 
decide cases.
    This rule will apply to all persons appearing before the Board. 
Applicants for a trademark and other parties to Board proceedings are 
not industry-specific and may consist of individuals, small businesses, 
non-profit organizations, and large corporations. The Office does not 
collect or maintain statistics in Board cases on small- versus large-
entity parties, and this information would be required in order to 
determine the number of small entities that would be affected by this 
rule.
    No additional burden is imposed by this rule change. This rule will 
benefit all the parties to proceedings by increasing certainty, 
efficiency and clarity in the process, and streamlining the procedures. 
Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Executive Order 12866: This rule has been determined not to be 
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): 
The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). 
Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: 
(1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs 
of the rule changes; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden 
on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) 
selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) 
specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available 
alternatives; (6) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to 
participate in the regulatory process, including soliciting the views 
of those likely affected prior to issuing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) 
attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization 
across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote 
innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the 
objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes, 
to the extent applicable.
    Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 
12866.
    Executive Order 13132: This rule does not contain policies with 
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
    Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act 
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final covered rule, 
the Office will submit a report containing the final rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government 
Accountability Office. The changes in this rule are not expected to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or 
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, 
this rule change is not covered because it is not expected to result in 
a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995: The Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires that agencies prepare an 
assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule 
that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule will 
have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or the 
private sector.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501-3549) requires that the Office consider the impact of 
paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the 
public. This rule involves information collection requirements that are 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3549). The 
collections of information involved in this rulemaking have been 
reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0040 
and 0651-0054. This rulemaking does not add any additional information 
requirements or fees for parties before the Board, and therefore, it 
does not change the information collection burdens approved under the 
OMB control numbers 0651-0040 and 0651-0054.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for 
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of 
information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority 
contained in 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as 
amended, the Office is amending part 2 of title 37 as follows:

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 
10(c) of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  2.120 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (i)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  2.120  Discovery.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *

[[Page 33806]]

    (1) If a party fails to make required initial disclosures or expert 
testimony disclosure, or fails to designate a person pursuant to Rule 
30(b)(6) or Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or if a 
party, or such designated person, or an officer, director or managing 
agent of a party fails to attend a deposition or fails to answer any 
question propounded in a discovery deposition, or any interrogatory, or 
fails to produce and permit the inspection and copying of any document, 
electronically stored information, or tangible thing, the party 
entitled to disclosure or seeking discovery may file a motion to compel 
disclosure, a designation, or attendance at a deposition, or an answer, 
or production and an opportunity to inspect and copy. A motion to 
compel initial disclosures must be filed within thirty days after the 
deadline therefor and include a copy of the disclosure(s), if any, and 
a motion to compel an expert testimony disclosure must be filed prior 
to the close of the discovery period. A motion to compel discovery must 
be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for 
the first testimony period as originally set or as reset. A motion to 
compel discovery shall include a copy of the request for designation of 
a witness or of the relevant portion of the discovery deposition; or a 
copy of the interrogatory with any answer or objection that was made; 
or a copy of the request for production, any proffer of production or 
objection to production in response to the request, and a list and 
brief description of the documents, electronically stored information, 
or tangible things that were not produced for inspection and copying. A 
motion to compel initial disclosures, expert testimony disclosure, or 
discovery must be supported by a showing from the moving party that 
such party or the attorney therefor has made a good faith effort, by 
conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or the 
attorney therefor the issues presented in the motion but the parties 
were unable to resolve their differences. If issues raised in the 
motion are subsequently resolved by agreement of the parties, the 
moving party should inform the Board in writing of the issues in the 
motion which no longer require adjudication.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Any motion by a party to determine the sufficiency of an answer 
or objection, including testing the sufficiency of a general objection 
on the ground of excessive number, to a request made by that party for 
an admission must be filed before the day of the deadline for pretrial 
disclosures for the first testimony period, as originally set or as 
reset. The motion shall include a copy of the request for admission and 
any exhibits thereto and of the answer or objection. The motion must be 
supported by a written statement from the moving party showing that 
such party or the attorney therefor has made a good faith effort, by 
conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or the 
attorney therefor the issues presented in the motion and has been 
unable to reach agreement. If issues raised in the motion are 
subsequently resolved by agreement of the parties, the moving party 
should inform the Board in writing of the issues in the motion which no 
longer require adjudication.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  2.127 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.127  Motions.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) A party may not file a motion for summary judgment until the 
party has made its initial disclosures, except for a motion asserting 
claim or issue preclusion or lack of jurisdiction by the Trademark 
Trial and Appeal Board. A motion for summary judgment must be filed 
before the day of the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first 
testimony period, as originally set or as reset. A motion under Rule 
56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if filed in response to 
a motion for summary judgment, shall be filed within thirty days from 
the date of service of the summary judgment motion. The time for filing 
a motion under Rule 56(d) will not be extended or reopened. If no 
motion under Rule 56(d) is filed, a brief in response to the motion for 
summary judgment shall be filed within thirty days from the date of 
service of the motion unless the time is extended by stipulation of the 
parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or 
upon order of the Board. If a motion for an extension is denied, the 
time for responding to the motion for summary judgment may remain as 
specified under this section. A reply brief, if filed, shall be filed 
within twenty days from the date of service of the brief in response to 
the motion. The time for filing a reply brief will not be extended or 
reopened. The Board will consider no further papers in support of or in 
opposition to a motion for summary judgment.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 17, 2017.
Joseph D. Matal,
Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2017-15346 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
33804 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Italian Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE objectives of the January 14, 2017 final
Valley Italian Heritage Festival rule. They advance the goals of
Fireworks’’ land-based fireworks United States Patent and Trademark efficiency of inter partes proceedings by
display. During the enforcement period, Office streamlining discovery and pretrial
entry into the safety zone is prohibited procedure, particularly by signaling that
for all vessels not registered with the 37 CFR Part 2 the trial phase of the proceedings
sponsor as participants or official patrol [Docket No. PTO–T–2017–0025] commences with the deadline for the
vessels, unless specifically authorized first pretrial disclosure, by which
RIN 0651–AD22 juncture all discovery disputes will
by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety
Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated have been resolved or at least brought to
Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark the attention of the Board and all
representative. Trial and Appeal Board Rules of parties.
DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR Practice; Clarification
Discussion of Rule Changes
165.801, Table 1, line 14, will be AGENCY: United States Patent and
enforced from 9 p.m. through 10:30 Trademark Office, Commerce. Discovery
p.m., on July 22, 2017. ACTION: Final rule. The USPTO is amending the third
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If sentence of § 2.120(f)(1) to indicate that
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and
you have questions about this notice of a motion to compel discovery must be
Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’) published
enforcement, call or email MST1 filed before the day of the deadline for
in the Federal Register on October 7,
Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit pretrial disclosures for the first
2016 a final rule, which became
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone testimony period as originally set or as
effective on January 14, 2017, revising
412–221–0807, email reset.
the Rules of Practice before the
Jennifer.L.Haggins@uscg.mil. The USPTO is amending the first
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
sentence of § 2.120(i)(1) to indicate that
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast This document clarifies certain
a motion to determine and test the
provisions of the rules of practice
Guard will enforce the safety zone for sufficiency of an answer or objection to
regarding the deadlines for filing
the annual ‘‘Upper Ohio Valley Italian a request for admission must be filed
motions to compel discovery, motions
Heritage Festival/Upper Ohio Valley before the day of the deadline for
to test the sufficiency of responses or
Italian Heritage Festival Fireworks’’ pretrial disclosures for the first
objections to requests for admission,
land based fireworks display, listed in testimony period as originally set or as
and motions for summary judgment.
the regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table reset.
The clarification promotes clarity and
1, Sector Ohio Valley, line 14 from 9 reflects ongoing and current practice, in Motions
p.m. through 10:30 p.m., on July 22, keeping with the goals of efficiency and
2017. Our Sector Ohio Valley Annual The USPTO is amending the second
predictability in the procedure and sentence of § 2.127(e)(1) to indicate that
and Recurring Safety Zones, § 165.801, process of trial cases. a motion for summary judgment must be
specifies the location of the regulated DATES: This rule is effective on July 21, filed before the day of the deadline for
area for the Ohio River, Mile 90.0 to 2017. pretrial disclosures for the first
90.5. Entry into the safety zone is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: testimony period as originally set or as
prohibited unless authorized by the Cheryl Butler, Trademark Trial and reset.
Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Appeal Board, by email at
Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated TTABFRNotices@uspto.gov, or by Rulemaking Considerations
representative. Persons or vessels telephone at (571) 272–4259. Administrative Procedure Act: The
desiring to enter into or passage through SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The changes in this rulemaking involve rules
the safety zone must request permission USPTO issues this final rule to clarify of agency practice and procedure and/
from the COTP or a designated the latest time in an inter partes or interpretive rules. See Nat’l Org. of
representative. If permission is granted, proceeding that certain motions may be Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans
all persons and vessels shall comply filed. The USPTO’s October 7, 2016 Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
with the instructions of the COTP or final rule revising the Trademark Trial 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation
designated representative. and Appeal Board Rules of Practice (81 of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow
This notice of enforcement is issued FR 69950) (published under RIN 0651– Communications Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d
AC35), effective January 14, 2017, 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules
under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and
required that any motion to compel governing an application process are
5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
discovery, § 2.120(f)(1), motion to test procedural under the Administrative
notice of enforcement in the Federal
the sufficiency of responses or Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp.
Register, the Coast Guard will provide v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir.
objections to requests for admission,
advance notification of this enforcement 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were
§ 2.120(i)(1), or motion for summary
period via Local Notice to Mariners and judgment, § 2.127(e)(1), be filed prior to procedural where they did not change
updates via Marine Information the deadline for pretrial disclosures for the substantive standard for reviewing
Broadcasts. the first testimony period as set or as claims.).
Dated: June 28, 2017. reset. The USPTO now amends the rules Accordingly, prior notice and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES

F. Smith, of practice to make clear that such opportunity for public comment for the
motions must be filed before the day of rule changes are not required pursuant
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard,
Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit the deadline for pretrial disclosures for to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other
Pittsburgh, Acting. the first testimony period as originally law. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers
[FR Doc. 2017–15370 Filed 7–20–17; 8:45 am]
set or as reset. Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015)
The amendments promote clarity in (Notice-and-comment procedures are
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
the regulations and further the required neither when an agency

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Jul 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM 21JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 33805

‘‘issue[s] an initial interpretive rule’’ nor Office has complied with Executive Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires that
‘‘when it amends or repeals that Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). agencies prepare an assessment of
interpretive rule.’’); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent anticipated costs and benefits before
Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 (Fed. feasible and applicable: (1) Made a issuing any rule that may result in
Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and reasoned determination that the benefits expenditure by State, local, and tribal
thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), does not require justify the costs of the rule changes; (2) governments, in the aggregate, or by the
notice and comment rulemaking for tailored the rule to impose the least private sector, of $100 million or more
‘‘interpretative rules, general statements burden on society consistent with (adjusted annually for inflation) in any
of policy, or rules of agency obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) given year. This rule will have no such
organization, procedure, or practice’’ selected a regulatory approach that effect on State, local, and tribal
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). maximizes net benefits; (4) specified governments or the private sector.
Similarly, the 30-day delay in performance objectives; (5) identified Paperwork Reduction Act: The
effectiveness is not applicable because and assessed available alternatives; (6) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
this rule is not a substantive rule. 5 provided the public with a meaningful U.S.C. 3501–3549) requires that the
U.S.C. 553(d). As discussed above, this opportunity to participate in the Office consider the impact of paperwork
rulemaking involves rules of agency regulatory process, including soliciting and other information collection
practice and procedure, merely the views of those likely affected prior burdens imposed on the public. This
consisting of clarifications to the to issuing a notice of proposed rule involves information collection
procedure and timing of filing certain rulemaking, and provided online access requirements that are subject to review
motions in inter partes proceedings. to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted by the Office of Management and
These changes are procedural in nature to promote coordination, simplification, Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
and will have no impact on the and harmonization across government Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
substantive evaluation of a trademark agencies and identified goals designed 3549). The collections of information
application or registration. to promote innovation; (8) considered involved in this rulemaking have been
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy approaches that reduce burdens and reviewed and previously approved by
General Counsel for General Law of the maintain flexibility and freedom of OMB under control numbers 0651–0040
United States Patent and Trademark choice for the public; and (9) ensured and 0651–0054. This rulemaking does
Office has certified to the Chief Counsel the objectivity of scientific and not add any additional information
for Advocacy of the Small Business technological information and requirements or fees for parties before
Administration that this rule will not processes, to the extent applicable. the Board, and therefore, it does not
have a significant economic impact on Executive Order 13771 (Reducing change the information collection
a substantial number of small entities. Regulation and Controlling Regulatory burdens approved under the OMB
See Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Costs): This rule is not an Executive control numbers 0651–0040 and 0651–
605(b). Order 13771 regulatory action because 0054.
This rulemaking involves changes to this rule is not significant under
Notwithstanding any other provision
a rule of agency practice and procedure Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132: This rule does of law, no person is required to respond
in matters before the Trademark Trial
not contain policies with federalism to, nor shall any person be subject to, a
and Appeal Board. The changes provide
implications sufficient to warrant penalty for failure to comply with a
greater clarity as to certain deadlines in
preparation of a Federalism Assessment collection of information subject to the
Board proceedings. This rule does not
under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, requirements of the Paperwork
alter any substantive criteria used to
1999). Reduction Act unless that collection of
decide cases.
This rule will apply to all persons Congressional Review Act: Under the information displays a currently valid
appearing before the Board. Applicants Congressional Review Act provisions of OMB control number.
for a trademark and other parties to the Small Business Regulatory List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2
Board proceedings are not industry- Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any Administrative practice and
specific and may consist of individuals,
final covered rule, the Office will procedure, Trademarks.
small businesses, non-profit
organizations, and large corporations. submit a report containing the final rule For the reasons given in the preamble
The Office does not collect or maintain and other required information to the and under the authority contained in 15
statistics in Board cases on small- versus U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35
large-entity parties, and this information Representatives, and the Comptroller U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office is
would be required in order to determine General of the Government amending part 2 of title 37 as follows:
the number of small entities that would Accountability Office. The changes in
be affected by this rule. this rule are not expected to result in an PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
No additional burden is imposed by annual effect on the economy of 100 TRADEMARK CASES
this rule change. This rule will benefit million dollars or more, a major increase
in costs or prices, or significant adverse ■ 1. The authority citation for part 2
all the parties to proceedings by
effects on competition, employment, continues to read as follows:
increasing certainty, efficiency and
clarity in the process, and streamlining investment, productivity, innovation, or Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123,
the procedures. Therefore, this action the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112–29,
compete with foreign-based enterprises unless otherwise noted.
will not have a significant economic
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES

impact on a substantial number of small in domestic and export markets. ■ 2. Amend § 2.120 by revising
entities. Therefore, this rule change is not paragraphs (f)(1) and (i)(1) to read as
Executive Order 12866: This rule has covered because it is not expected to follows:
been determined not to be significant for result in a major rule as defined in 5
purposes of Executive Order 12866. U.S.C. 804(2). § 2.120 Discovery.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of * * * * *
Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 1995: The Unfunded Mandates Reform (f) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Jul 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM 21JYR1
Document Created: 2017-07-21 06:00:06
Document Modified: 2017-07-21 06:00:06
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		This rule is effective on July 21, 2017.
Contact		Cheryl Butler, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-4259.
FR Citation		82 FR 33804
RIN Number		0651-AD22
CFR Associated		Administrative Practice and Procedure and Trademarks
82 FR 33804 - Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice; Clarification

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEUnited States Patent and Trademark Office

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 139 (July 21, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
