# Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. Harry F. Chaveriat III

> Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · June 23, 2008

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11282674

## Case

- **Court:** Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- **Decided:** June 23, 2008
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by By the Board
- **Judges:** Greenbaum (Supervisory Interlocutory Attorney)
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11282674

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
THIS OPINION IS A Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451

Mailed: June 23, 2008

Opposition No. 91182083

Boston Red Sox Baseball Club
Limited Partnership

v.

Harry F. Chaveriat III

Cindy B. Greenbaum, Supervisory Interlocutory Attorney:

Immediately following the parties’ discovery and

settlement conference, opposer filed a consented “Notice of

Waiver of Initial Disclosures,” wherein the parties agreed

to “waive any requirement to make initial disclosures in

this proceeding.”

Trademark Rules 2.120(a)(2) and 2.120(a)(3), as

amended, allow parties to modify the discovery and trial

schedule, including the deadline for making initial

disclosures, if the parties file, and the Board approves, a

stipulation or motion to that effect.1 Parties must inform

the Board, by stipulation or motion, any time they agree to

1
Once an answer has been filed, the Board generally will not
approve a motion or stipulation to extend the deadline for a
settlement and discovery planning conference absent a sufficient
showing of good cause. Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board Rules (Final Rule), 72 Fed. Reg. 42242, 42245
(August 1, 2007). The Board is unlikely to find good cause when
such a request is based on the parties’ desire to engage in
settlement discussions. Id.
modify their obligations under the rules governing

disclosures and discovery, as well as when they agree to

modify deadlines or schedules that involve disclosures,

discovery,2 trial or briefing. Such modifications are

subject to Board approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29, and

Trademark Rule 2.116.

In the August 1, 2007 Notice of Final Rulemaking, 72

Fed. Reg. 42242, 42246, the Board specifically contemplated

that parties might agree to “forego disclosures and agree to

utilize only traditional discovery devices.” When the

parties file a stipulation, motion, or notice regarding

waiver of initial disclosures, the Board strongly prefers

the parties to include a description of the parties’

alternate plans for discovery, even if such plans merely

provide for use of traditional discovery devices such as

depositions, interrogatories, requests for production or

inspection, and requests for admission. As discussed in the

Notice of Final Rulemaking, this description need not be

extensive, although it should report any agreements to limit

use of these discovery devices, allow for participation in

depositions by telephone, and the like.

2
Written stipulations to extend the period for responding to
discovery requests need only be filed with the Board when the
extension may interfere with the orderly completion of discovery
or the opening of trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 29.

2
The Board’s preference notwithstanding, in this case,

in the absence of any statement from the parties other than

that they waive their reciprocal obligations to make initial

disclosures, the Board will presume the parties plan to

utilize traditional discovery devices, as permitted by the

Trademark Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In view thereof, the “Notice of Waiver of Initial

Disclosures” is approved.

Dates remain as previously set in the Board’s January

25, 2008 institution order.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11282674. Public record. Not legal advice.