CHAPTER 700 INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

 701 Time of Trial

 702 Manner of Trial

 703 Applications and Registrations

 704 Statements and Things in Application or Registration

 705 Exhibits to Pleadings or Briefs

 706 Statements in Pleadings or Briefs

 707 Official Records

 708 Printed Publications

 709 Discovery Depositions

 710 Interrogatory Answers; Admissions

 711 Produced Documents

 712 Judicial Notice

 713 Oral Depositions

 714 Depositions Upon Written Questions

 715 Testimony From Another Proceeding

 716 Stipulated Evidence

 717 Noncomplying Evidence

 718 Objections to Evidence

 701 Time of Trial

 37 CFR 2.116(b) The opposer in an opposition proceeding or the petitioner in
 a cancellation proceeding shall be in the position of plaintiff, and the applicant
 in an opposition proceeding or the respondent in a cancellation proceeding
 shall be in the position of defendant. A party that is a junior party in an
 interference proceeding or in a concurrent use registration proceeding shall be
 in the position of plaintiff against every party that is senior, and the party that
 is a senior party in an interference proceeding or in a concurrent use
 registration proceeding shall be a defendant against every party that is junior.

 (c) The opposition or the petition for cancellation and the answer correspond to
 the complaint and answer in a court proceeding.

 (d) The assignment of testimony periods corresponds to setting a case for trial
 in court proceedings.

 (e) The taking of depositions during the assigned testimony periods corresponds
 to the trial in court proceedings.

 37 CFR 2.121 Assignment of times for taking testimony.
 (a)(1) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order assigning
 to each party the time for taking testimony. No testimony shall be taken except
 during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the
 Board, or, upon motion, by order of the Board. Testimony periods may be
 rescheduled by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion
 granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. The resetting of the closing
 date for discovery will result in the rescheduling of the testimony periods
 without action by any party. The resetting of a party's time to respond to an
 outstanding request for discovery will not result in the automatic rescheduling
 of the discovery and/or testimony periods; such dates will be rescheduled only
 upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted
 by the Board, or by order of the Board.

 (2) The initial trial order will be mailed by the Board after issue is joined.

 (b)(1) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will schedule a testimony period
 for the plaintiff to present its case in chief, a testimony period for the defendant
 to present its case and to meet the case of the plaintiff, and a testimony period
 for the plaintiff to present evidence in rebuttal.

 (2) When there is a counterclaim, or when proceedings have been consolidated
 and one party is in the position of plaintiff in one of the involved proceedings
 and in the position of defendant in another of the involved proceedings. or when
 there is an interference or a concurrent use registration proceeding involving
 more than two parties, the Board will schedule testimony periods so that each
 party in the position of plaintiff will have a period for presenting its case in
 chief against each party in the position of defendant, each party in the position
 of defendant will have a period for presenting its case and meeting the case of
 each plaintiff, and each party in the position of plaintiff will have a period for
 presenting evidence in rebuttal.

 (c) A testimony period which is solely for rebuttal will be set for fifteen days.
 All other testimony periods will be set for thirty days. The periods may be
 extended by stipulation of the parties approved by the Trademark Trial and
 Appeal Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by order of the Board.

 When a defendant's answer to a complaint is received by the Board, the Board
 prepares and mails to the parties a trial order setting the closing date of the
 discovery period, and assigning each party's time for taking testimony and
 introducing other evidence. See 37 CFR 2.120(a), 2.121(a)(1), and
 2.121(a)(2), and TBMP 403.01. Specifically, the Board schedules a 30-day
 testimony period for the plaintiff to present its case in chief, a 30-day testimony
 period for the defendant to present its case and to meet the case of the plaintiff,
 and a 15-day testimony period for the plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence. See
 37 CFR 2.121(b)(1) and 2.121(c). The plaintiff's period for presenting its
 case in chief is scheduled to open 30 days after the close of the discovery
 period; the defendant's testimony period is scheduled to open 30 days after the
 close of the plaintiff's testimony period in chief; and the plaintiff's rebuttal
 testimony period is scheduled to open 30 days after the close of the defendant's
 testimony period. See Stagecoach Properties, Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 199
 USPQ 341, 356 (TTAB 1978), aff'd, 685 F.2d 302, 216 USPQ 480 (9th Cir.
 1982).

 If there is a counterclaim, or if proceedings have been consolidated and one
 party is in the position of plaintiff in one of the involved proceedings and in the
 position of defendant in another, or if there is an interference or a concurrent
 use registration proceeding involving more than two parties, the Board schedules
 testimony periods as specified in 37 CFR 2.121(b)(2), i.e., giving each
 plaintiff a period for presenting its case in chief as against each defendant,
 giving each defendant a period for presenting its case and meeting the case of
 each plaintiff, and giving each plaintiff a period for rebuttal. The testimony
 periods are separated from the discovery period and from each other by 30-day
 intervals. See 37 CFR 2.121(b)(2) and 2.121(c); Jan Bell Marketing Inc. v.
 Centennial Jewelers Inc., 19 USPQ2d 1636 (TTAB 1990) (example of a trial
 order, including a briefing schedule, in an opposition with a counterclaim);
 TBMP 1007 (example of a trial order, including a briefing schedule, in an
 interference proceeding); and TBMP 1108 (examples of trial orders, including
 briefing schedules, in concurrent use proceedings). In an interference or
 concurrent use proceeding, a junior party is in the position of plaintiff and a
 senior party is in the position of defendant. See 37 CFR 2.96 and 2.99(e),
 and TBMP 1005 and 1007.

 A party may not take testimony outside of its assigned testimony period, except
 by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or, upon motion, by order
 of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1). See also M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems
 Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990); Maytag Co. v. Luskin's, Inc., 228 USPQ
 747 (TTAB 1986); and Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203
 USPQ 861, 867 (TTAB 1979). Cf. Of Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel
 Chartered, 21 USPQ2d 1555 (TTAB 1991) (where opposer's testimony
 deposition was taken two days prior to the opening of opposer's testimony
 period, and applicant first raised an untimeliness objection in its brief on the
 case, objection held waived, since the premature taking of the deposition could
 have been corrected upon seasonable objection).

 Testimony periods may be rescheduled, extended, or reopened by stipulation of
 the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by
 order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1) and 2.121(c); FRCP 6(b); and
 TBMP 501 and 509. It is preferable, where an unconsented motion seeks an
 extension or a reopening of a testimony period or periods, or of the discovery
 period and testimony periods, that the motion request that the new period or
 periods be set to run from the date of the Board's decision on the motion. See
 TBMP 509.02.

 The resetting of the closing date for discovery results in the automatic
 rescheduling of the testimony periods, without action by any party. However,
 the resetting of a party's time to respond to an outstanding request for discovery
 does not result in the automatic rescheduling of the discovery and/or testimony
 periods. When a party's time to respond to an outstanding request for
 discovery is reset, the discovery and/or testimony periods will be rescheduled
 only upon stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion
 granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1).

 In Board inter partes proceedings, the taking of testimony depositions during the
 assigned testimony periods corresponds to the trial in court proceedings, and the
 trial period commences with the opening of the first testimony period. See
 TBMP 504.01, and authorities cited therein. Cf. TBMP 528.02.

 702 Manner of Trial

 Because the Board is an administrative tribunal, its rules and procedures
 necessarily differ in some respects from those prevailing in the Federal district
 courts. See Yamaha International Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572,
 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and La Maur, Inc. v. Bagwells
 Enterprises, Inc., 193 USPQ 234 (Comm'r 1976). Cf. TBMP 102.03 and
 502.01. For example, proceedings before the Board are conducted in writing,
 and the Board's actions in a particular case are based upon the written record
 therein. See 37 CFR 1.2. The Board does not preside at the taking of
 testimony. Rather, all testimony is taken out of the presence of the Board, and
 the written transcripts thereof, together with any exhibits thereto, are then
 submitted to the Board. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Healthcare Personnel Inc.,
 21 USPQ2d 1552 (TTAB 1991), and La Maur, Inc. v. Bagwells Enterprises,
 Inc., supra.

 Depositions may be noticed for any reasonable place in the United States. See
 37 CFR 2.123(c). As a result, parties do not have to travel to the offices of
 the Board, or to the geographical area surrounding the Board's offices, to take
 their testimony. A party to a proceeding before the Board need never come to
 the offices of the Board at all, unless the party wishes to argue its case at oral
 hearing (and an oral hearing is held only if requested by a party to the
 proceeding--see 37 CFR 2.129(a)).

 For a discussion concerning the general nature of trials in proceedings before the
 Board, see Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861, 867
 (TTAB 1979); La Maur, Inc. v. Bagwells Enterprises, Inc., 193 USPQ 234
 (Comm'r 1976); and Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. J. G. Furniture Co., 190
 USPQ 431 (TTAB 1976).

 The papers and other materials filed with the Board during the course of an
 inter partes proceeding are kept, during the course of the proceeding, in the
 physical possession of the Board. See TBMP 120. However, no paper,
 document, exhibit, etc. will be considered as evidence in the case unless it has
 been introduced in evidence in accordance with the applicable rules. See 37
 CFR 2.123(l), and TBMP 717. The provisions of those rules are described
 below.

 703 Applications and Registrations

 703.01 Subject of Proceeding

 37 CFR 2.122(b) Application files. (1) The file of each application or
 registration specified in a declaration of interference, of each application or
 registration specified in the notice of a concurrent use registration proceeding,
 of the application against which a notice of opposition is filed, or of each
 registration against which a petition or counterclaim for cancellation is filed
 forms part of the record of the proceeding without any action by the parties and
 reference may be made to the file for any relevant and competent purpose.

 (2) The allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a
 date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant; a date of
 use of a mark must be established by competent evidence. Specimens in the file
 of an application for registration, or in the file of a registration, are not
 evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant unless identified and
 introduced in evidence as exhibits during the period for the taking of testimony.

 The file of an application or registration which is the subject of a Board inter
 partes proceeding forms part of the record of the proceeding without any action
 by the parties, and reference may be made to the file by any party for any
 relevant and competent purpose. See 37 CFR 2.122(b)(1). See also Specialty
 Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ 1281
 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Cleveland-Detroit Corp. v. Comco (Machinery) Ltd., 277 F.2d
 958, 125 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1960); and Kellogg Co. v. Pack'Em Enterprises
 Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff'd, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142
 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

 However, the fact that the subject application or registration file is automatically
 part of the record in a proceeding does not mean that the allegations made, and
 the specimens, documents, exhibits, etc. filed, therein are evidence on behalf of
 the applicant or registrant in the inter partes proceeding. Allegations must be
 established by competent evidence properly adduced at trial, and the specimens,
 documents, exhibits, etc. in an application or registration file are not evidence,
 in an inter partes proceeding, on behalf of the applicant or registrant unless they
 are identified and introduced in evidence as exhibits during the testimony
 period. See 37 CFR 2.122(b)(2). See also TBMP 704. For further
 information concerning the probative value of applications and registrations, see
 TBMP 703.02 and 703.03.

 703.02 Registration Not Subject of Proceeding

 703.02(a) Registration Owned by Party

 37 CFR 2.122(d) Registrations. (1) A registration of the opposer or petitioner
 pleaded in an opposition or petition to cancel will be received in evidence and
 made part of the record if the opposition or petition is accompanied by two
 copies of the registration prepared and issued by the Patent and Trademark
 Office showing both the current status of and current title to the registration.
 For the cost of a copy of a registration showing status and title, see 2.6(n).

 (2) A registration owned by any party to a proceeding may be made of record
 in the proceeding by that party by appropriate identification and introduction
 during the taking of testimony or by filing a notice of reliance, which shall be
 accompanied by a copy of the registration prepared and issued by the Patent
 and Trademark Office showing both the current status of and current title to the
 registration. The notice of reliance shall be filed during the testimony period of
 the party that files the notice.

 A party which owns a subsisting Federal registration of its mark, and wishes to
 rely upon the registration in an inter partes proceeding before the Board (the
 registration not being the subject of the proceeding), may make the registration
 of record by offering evidence sufficient to establish that the registration is still
 subsisting, and that it is owned by the party which seeks to rely upon it. See
 Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Alcar Metals Inc., 200 USPQ 742 (TTAB 1978);
 Maybelline Co. v. Matney, 194 USPQ 438 (TTAB 1977); and Peters Sportswear
 Co. v. Peter's Bag Corp., 187 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1975). This may be done in a
 number of different ways.

 A Federal registration owned by the plaintiff in an opposition or cancellation
 proceeding, and pleaded by the plaintiff in its complaint, will be received in
 evidence and made part of the record in the proceeding if the complaint (either
 as originally filed or as amended) is accompanied by two copies of the
 registration prepared and issued by the PTO showing both the current status of
 and current title to the registration. See 37 CFR 2.122(d)(1). See also
 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F.2d 1551, 18 USPQ2d 1710 (Fed.
 Cir. 1991); Philip Morris Inc. v. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, 14
 USPQ2d 1487 (TTAB 1990); Floralife, Inc. v. Floraline International Inc., 225
 USPQ 683 (TTAB 1984); Industrial Adhesive Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ
 945 (TTAB 1983); Acme Boot Co. v. Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, Inc.,
 213 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1980); Royal Hawaiian Perfumes, Ltd. v. Diamond Head
 Products of Hawaii, Inc., 204 USPQ 144 (TTAB 1979); Vita-Pakt Citrus
 Products Co. v. Cerro, 195 USPQ 78 (TTAB 1977); Maybelline Co. v. Matney,
 194 USPQ 438 (TTAB 1977); Marriott Corp. v. Pappy's Enterprises, Inc., 192
 USPQ 735 (TTAB 1976); American Manufacturing Co., v. Phase Industries,
 Inc., 192 USPQ 498 (TTAB 1976); West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Borlan
 Industries Inc., 191 USPQ 53 (TTAB 1976); O. M. Scott & Sons Co. v. Ferry-
 Morse Seed Co., 190 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1976); Fort Howard Paper Co. v.
 Georgia-Pacific Corp., 189 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1975); Peters Sportswear Co. v.
 Peter's Bag Corp., 187 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1975); and A.R.A. Manufacturing Co.
 v. Equipment Co., 183 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1974). Cf. Hollister Inc. v. Downey,
 565 F.2d 1208, 196 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1977).

 NOTE: Although some of the cases cited in this TBMP section indicate that a
 plaintiff may also make its pleaded registration of record by filing, with its
 complaint, an order for two status and title copies of the registration, that is no
 longer true. See 37 CFR 2.122(d); Notice of Final Rulemaking published in
 the Federal Register on May 23, 1983 at 48 FR 23122, and in the Patent and
 Trademark Office Official Gazette of June 21, 1983 at 1031 TMOG 13; and In
 re Inter-State Oil Co., 219 USPQ 1229 (TTAB 1983).

 A Federal registration owned by any party to a Board inter partes proceeding
 will be received in evidence and made part of the record in the proceeding if
 that party files, during its testimony period, a notice of reliance on the
 registration, accompanied by a copy of the registration prepared and issued by
 the PTO showing both the current status of and current title to the registration.
 See 37 CFR 2.122(d)(2). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931
 F.2d 1551, 18 USPQ2d 1710 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. EDSA Micro
 Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1460 (TTAB 1992); Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 18
 USPQ2d 1072 (TTAB 1990); Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B.
 Sport-International GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986); Sheller-Globe Co. v.
 Scott Paper Co., 204 USPQ 329 (TTAB 1979); Volkswagenwerk
 Aktiengesellschaft v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1979); and W.
 R. Grace & Co. v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 181 USPQ 118 (TTAB 1973).

 A party's submission, with a notice of reliance upon its registration, of an order
 for status and title copies of the registration is not sufficient to make the
 registration of record. The notice of reliance must be accompanied by the status
 and title copies themselves. See Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. EDSA Micro
 Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1460 (TTAB 1992). However, the status and title copies
 need not be certified. See 37 CFR 2.122(e).

 The registration copies "prepared and issued by the Patent and Trademark Office
 showing both the current status of and current title to the registration," as
 contemplated by 37 CFR 2.122(d), are printed copies of the registration in
 question whereon the PTO has entered the information it has in its records, at
 the time of the preparation and issuance of the status and title copies, pertaining
 to the current status and title of the registration, including information relating to
 renewal; cancellation; publication under Section 12(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
 1062(c); affidavits or declarations under Sections 8 and 15 of the Act, 15
 U.S.C. 1058 and 1065; and recorded documents transferring title. See
 Industrial Adhesive Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983), and
 Peters Sportswear Co. v. Peter's Bag Corp., 187 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1975).
 Plain copies of the registration, and the electronic equivalent thereof, i.e.,
 printouts of the registration from the electronic records of the PTO's trademark
 automated search system, known as "X-Search," are not sufficient for the
 purpose. See, for example, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F.2d
 1551, 18 USPQ2d 1710 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Industrial Adhesive Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218
 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); and Maybelline Co. v. Matney, 194 USPQ 438
 (TTAB 1977).

 Although the status and title copies need not be certified (see 37 CFR
 2.122(e)), at present all status and title copies prepared and issued by the PTO
 are certified. For the cost of a copy of a registration showing status and title,
 see 37 CFR 2.6(b)(4).

 The issuance date of status and title copies filed with a complaint must be
 reasonably contemporaneous with the filing date of the complaint. Status and
 title copies filed under a notice of reliance during the offering party's testimony
 period must have been issued at a time reasonably contemporaneous with the
 filing of the complaint, or thereafter. See Electronic Data Systems Corp. v.
 EDSA Micro Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1460 (TTAB 1992); Philip Morris Inc. v.
 Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, 14 USPQ2d 1487 (TTAB 1990);
 Industrial Adhesive Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); Royal
 Hawaiian Perfumes, Ltd. v. Diamond Head Products of Hawaii, Inc., 204 USPQ
 144 (TTAB 1979); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Clement Wheel Co.,
 204 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1979); and Marriott Corp. v. Pappy's Enterprises, Inc.,
 192 USPQ 735 (TTAB 1976). The fact that there have been no changes in the
 status and title of a party's registration since the date of its issuance does not
 mean that a plain photocopy thereof may be used by the party as a substitute for
 the status and title copy required by 37 CFR 2.122(d). See Industrial Adhesive
 Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); Maybelline Co. v. Matney,
 194 USPQ 438 (TTAB 1977); and Marriott Corp. v. Pappy's Enterprises, Inc.,
 192 USPQ 735 (TTAB 1976).

 When it comes to the attention of the Board that there has been a PTO error in
 the preparation of a registration status and title copy made of record in an inter
 partes proceeding, that is, that the status and title copy does not accurately
 reflect the status and title information which the PTO has in its records, the
 Board will take judicial notice of the correct facts as shown by the records of
 the PTO. See Duffy-Mott Co. v. Borden, Inc., 201 USPQ 846 (TTAB 1978).
 Cf. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76
 (TTAB 1979). Further, when a Federal registration owned by a party has been
 properly made of record in an inter partes proceeding, and there are changes in
 the status of the registration between the time it was made of record and the
 time the case is decided, the Board, in deciding the case, will take judicial
 notice of, and rely upon, the current status of the registration, as shown by the
 records of the PTO. See Royal Hawaiian Perfumes, Ltd. v. Diamond Head
 Products of Hawaii, Inc., 204 USPQ 144 (TTAB 1979); Duffy-Mott Co. v.
 Borden, Inc., 201 USPQ 846 (TTAB 1978); and Volkswagenwerk
 Aktiengesellschaft v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1979).

 A Federal registration owned by any party to a Board inter partes proceeding
 may be made of record by that party by appropriate identification and
 introduction during the taking of testimony, that is, by introducing a copy of the
 registration as an exhibit to testimony, made by a witness having knowledge of
 the current status and title of the registration, establishing that the registration is
 still subsisting, and is owned by the offering party. See 37 CFR 2.122(d)(2).
 See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F.2d 1551, 18 USPQ2d
 1710 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Floralife, Inc. v. Floraline International Inc., 225 USPQ
 683 (TTAB 1984); Cadence Industries Corp. v. Kerr, 225 USPQ 331 (TTAB
 1985); Acme Boot Co. v. Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation, Inc., 213 USPQ
 591 (TTAB 1980); Sheller-Globe Co. v. Scott Paper Co., 204 USPQ 329
 (TTAB 1979); Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Alcar Metals Inc., 200 USPQ 742
 (TTAB 1978); Groveton Papers Co. v. Anaconda Co., 197 USPQ 576 (TTAB
 1977); Maybelline Co. v. Matney, 194 USPQ 438 (TTAB 1977); GAF Corp. v.
 Anatox Analytical Services, Inc., 192 USPQ 576 (TTAB 1976); American
 Manufacturing Co., v. Phase Industries, Inc., 192 USPQ 498 (TTAB 1976); and
 West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Borlan Industries Inc., 191 USPQ 53 (TTAB
 1976).

 A Federal registration owned by a plaintiff (including a counterclaimant) will be
 deemed by the Board to be of record in an inter partes proceeding if the
 defendant's answer to the complaint contains admissions sufficient for the
 purpose. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Olympus Corp., 931 F.2d 1551, 18
 USPQ2d 1710 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and Tiffany & Co. v. Columbia Industries, Inc.,
 455 F.2d 582, 173 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1972). Similarly, a registration owned by
 any party to the proceeding may be deemed by the Board to be of record in the
 proceeding, even though the registration was not properly introduced in
 accordance with the applicable rules, if the adverse party in its brief, or
 otherwise, treats the registration as being of record. See Crown Radio Corp. v.
 Soundscriber Corp., 506 F.2d 1392, 184 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1974); Local
 Trademarks Inc. v. Handy Boys Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 1990); Industrial
 Adhesive Co. v. Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); American Standard
 Inc. v. Scott & Fetzer Co., 200 USPQ 457 (TTAB 1978); Jockey International,
 Inc. v. Frantti, 196 USPQ 705 (TTAB 1977); Angelica Corp. v. Collins &
 Aikman Corp., 192 USPQ 387 (TTAB 1976); and West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v.
 Borlan Industries Inc., 191 USPQ 53 (TTAB 1976). Finally, a registration
 owned by any party to the proceeding may be made of record in the proceeding
 by stipulation of the parties. See 37 CFR 2.123(b); Industrial Adhesive Co. v.
 Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); and Plus Products v. Natural
 Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1979).

 When a subsisting registration upon the Principal Register has been properly
 made of record by its owner in a Board inter partes proceeding, the certificate of
 registration is entitled to certain statutory evidentiary presumptions. See, for
 example, Section 7(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b); CTS Corp. v. Cronstoms
 Manufacturing, Inc., 515 F.2d 780, 185 USPQ 773 (CCPA 1975); Massey
 Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of Technology, 492 F.2d 1399, 181
 USPQ 272 (CCPA 1974); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949
 (TTAB 1986); Andrea Radio Corp. v. Premium Import Co., 191 USPQ 232
 (TTAB 1976); David Crystal, Inc. v. Glamorise Foundations, Inc., 189 USPQ
 740 (TTAB 1975); Johnson & Johnson v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 181
 USPQ 790 (TTAB 1974); and Gates Rubber Co. v. Western Coupling Corp.,
 179 USPQ 186 (TTAB 1973). See also Section 7(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
 1057(c) (conferring, contingent on the registration of a mark on the Principal
 Register, and subject to certain specified exceptions, constructive use priority
 dating from the filing of the application for registration of the mark); Jimlar
 Corp. v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 24 USPQ2d 1216, at fn.5
 (TTAB 1992); and Zirco Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 21
 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1991)..

 In contrast, a subsisting registration on the Supplemental Register, even when
 properly made of record by its owner, is not entitled to any statutory
 presumptions, and is not evidence of anything except that the registration issued.
 See McCormick & Co. v. Summers, 354 F.2d 668, 148 USPQ 272 (CCPA
 1966); In re Medical Disposables Co., 25 USPQ2d 1801 (TTAB 1992);
 Copperweld Corp. v. Arcair Co., 200 USPQ 470 (TTAB 1978); Andrea Radio
 Corp. v. Premium Import Co., 191 USPQ 232 (TTAB 1976); Aloe Creme
 Laboratories, Inc. v. Johnson Products Co., 183 USPQ 447 (TTAB 1974);
 Nabisco, Inc. v. George Weston Ltd., 179 USPQ 503 (TTAB 1973); and Aloe
 Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Bonne Bell, Inc., 168 USPQ 246 (TTAB 1970).

 Although an expired or cancelled registration may be made of record by any of
 the methods described above, such a registration is not evidence of anything
 except that the registration issued; it is not evidence of any presently existing
 rights in the mark shown in the registration, or that the mark was ever used.
 See Sunnen Products Co. v. Sunex International Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744 (TTAB
 1987); United States Shoe Corp. v. Kiddie Kobbler Ltd., 231 USPQ 815 (TTAB
 1986); Sinclair Manufacturing Co. v. Les Parfums de Dana, Inc., 191 USPQ
 292 (TTAB 1976); Bonomo Culture Institute, Inc. v. Mini-Gym, Inc., 188 USPQ
 415 (TTAB 1975); Borden, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 179 USPQ 316
 (TTAB 1973), aff'd without opinion, 500 F.2d 1407, 182 USPQ 307 (CCPA
 1974); Unitec Industries, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 176 USPQ 62 (TTAB
 1972); and Monocraft, Inc. v. Leading Jewelers Guild, 173 USPQ 506 (TTAB
 1972).

 A state registration owned by a party to a Board inter partes proceeding may be
 made of record therein by notice of reliance under 37 CFR 2.122(e) (see
 TBMP 707), or by appropriate identification and introduction during the taking
 of testimony, or by stipulation of the parties. However, a state registration
 (whether owned by a party, or not) is incompetent to establish that the mark
 shown therein has ever been used, or that the mark is entitled to Federal
 registration. See, for example, Faultless Starch Co. v. Sales Producers
 Associates, Inc., 530 F.2d 1400, 189 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1976); Kraft, Inc. v.
 Balin, 209 USPQ 877 (TTAB 1981); Plak-Shack, Inc. v. Continental Studios of
 Georgia, Inc., 204 USPQ 242 (TTAB 1979); Stagecoach Properties, Inc. v.
 Wells Fargo & Co., 199 USPQ 341, 356 (TTAB 1978), aff'd, 685 F.2d 302, 216
 USPQ 480 (9th Cir. 1982); Econo-Travel Motor Hotel Corp. v. Econ-O-Tel of
 America, Inc., 199 USPQ 307 (TTAB 1978); Angelica Corp. v. Collins &
 Aikman Corp., 192 USPQ 387 (TTAB 1976); State Historical Society of
 Wisconsin v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 190
 USPQ 25 (TTAB 1976); Old Dutch Foods, Inc. v. Old Dutch Country House,
 Inc., 180 USPQ 659 (TTAB 1973); and Philip Morris Inc. v. Liggett & Myers
 Tobacco Co., 139 USPQ 240 (TTAB 1963). Cf. In re Anania Associates, Inc.,
 223 USPQ 740 (TTAB 1984); In re Tilcon Warren, Inc., 221 USPQ 86 (TTAB
 1984); and In re Illinois Bronze Powder & Paint Co., 188 USPQ 459 (TTAB
 1975).

 A foreign registration owned by a party to a Board inter partes proceeding may
 be made of record in the same manner as a state registration, but a foreign
 registration is not evidence of the use, registrability, or ownership of the subject
 mark in the United States. See Societe Anonyme Marne et Champagne v.
 Myers, 250 F.2d 374, 116 USPQ 153 (CCPA 1957); Bureau National
 Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. International Better Drinks Corp., 6 USPQ2d
 1610 (TTAB 1988); Nabisco, Inc. v. George Weston Ltd., 179 USPQ 503
 (TTAB 1973); and Barash Co. v. Vitafoam Ltd., 155 USPQ 267 (TTAB 1967),
 aff'd, 427 F.2d 810, 166 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1970). Cf. In re Hag
 Aktiengesellschaft, 155 USPQ 598 (TTAB 1967).

 NOTE: If a party to a Board inter partes proceeding owns a registration which
 is not the subject of the proceeding, and wishes to make of record the
 registration file history (rather than just the certificate of registration), or a
 portion thereof, the party may do so by filing, during its testimony period, a
 copy of the file history, or the portion thereof, together with a notice of reliance
 thereon pursuant to 37 CFR 2.122(e) (see TBMP 707); or by appropriate
 identification and introduction of a copy of the file history, or portion thereof,
 during the taking of testimony; or by stipulation of the parties, accompanied by
 a copy of the file history, or portion thereof. The file history of a registration
 owned by another party, but not the subject of the proceeding, may be made of
 record in the same manner. See Harzfeld's, Inc. v. Joseph M. Feldman, Inc.,
 184 USPQ 692 (TTAB 1974). Copies of official records of the Patent and
 Trademark Office need not be certified. See 37 CFR 2.122(e).

 703.02(b) Third-Party Registration

 37 CFR 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records. Printed
 publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and official
 records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant
 to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the
 material being offered. The notice shall specify the printed publication
 (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the
 publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; indicate generally
 the relevance of the material being offered; and be accompanied by the official
 record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal
 Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Patent and Trademark
 Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence. The notice of reliance
 shall be filed during the testimony period of the party that files the notice.

 A party to an inter partes proceeding before the Board may introduce, as part of
 its evidence in the case, a third-party registration, that is, a registration owned
 by a party not involved in the proceeding. See J. David Sams, TIPS FROM
 THE TTAB: Third Party Registrations in TTAB Proceedings, 72 Trademark
 Rep. 297 (1982).

 A party which wishes to make a third-party registration of record in a Board
 inter partes proceeding may do so by filing, during its testimony period, a plain
 copy of the registration together with a notice of reliance thereon specifying the
 registration and indicating generally its relevance. See 37 CFR 2.122(e). See
 also Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Pure Gold,
 Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc., 221 USPQ 151 (TTAB 1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 624,
 222 USPQ 741 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Herbert J. Meyer
 Industries, Inc., 190 USPQ 308 (TTAB 1976); and J. David Sams, TIPS FROM
 THE TTAB: Third Party Registrations in TTAB Proceedings, 72 Trademark
 Rep. 297, 301 (1982).

 A party to a Board inter partes proceeding may also make a third-party
 registration of record by introducing a copy thereof as an exhibit to testimony,
 or by stipulation of the parties.

 It is not necessary that the copy of the third-party registration submitted with a
 notice of reliance (or with testimony or a stipulation) be certified, nor need it be
 a current status and title copy prepared by the PTO; a plain copy (or legible
 photocopy) of the registration itself, or the electronic equivalent thereof, that is,
 a printout of the registration from the electronic records of the PTO's trademark
 automated search system, known as "X-Search," is all that is required. See 37
 CFR 2.122(e); In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994);
 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Interbank Card
 Ass'n v. United States National Bank of Oregon, 197 USPQ 123 (TTAB 1977);
 J. David Sams, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Third Party Registrations in TTAB
 Proceedings, 72 Trademark Rep. 297, 301 (1982); and Janet E. Rice, TIPS
 FROM THE TTAB: Making Documents Obtained During Discovery and Third-
 Party Registrations of Record, 67 Trademark Rep. 54 (1977). A current status
 and title copy prepared by the PTO (or other appropriate proof of current status
 and title) is necessary when the owner of a registration on the Principal Register
 seeks to make the registration of record for the purpose of relying on the
 presumptions accorded to a certificate of registration pursuant to Section 7(b) of
 the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b). See TBMP 703.02(a). However, the Section
 7(b) presumptions accorded to a registration on the Principal Register accrue
 only to the benefit of the owner of the registration, and hence come into play
 only when the registration is made of record by its owner, or when the
 registration is cited by a Trademark Examining Attorney (in an ex parte case) as
 a reference under Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), against a mark
 sought to be registered. See Section 7(b) of the Act; Chemical New York Corp.
 v. Conmar Form Systems, Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1986); In re Phillips-
 Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986); In re H & H Products, 228
 USPQ 771 (TTAB 1986); Yamaha International Corp. v. Stevenson, 196 USPQ
 701 (TTAB 1979); Fuld Brothers, Inc. v. Carpet Technical Service Institute,
 Inc., 174 USPQ 473 (TTAB 1972); and Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. E. Martinoni
 Co., 157 USPQ 394 (TTAB 1968). Thus, when third-party registrations are
 made of record, the Section 7(b) presumptions may not be relied upon by the
 party offering them; normally, third-party registrations are offered merely to
 show that they issued, and a plain copy of the registration is sufficient for that
 purpose. See Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Milstone, 130 USPQ 274 (TTAB
 1961), and Janet E. Rice, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Making Documents
 Obtained During Discovery and Third-Party Registrations of Record, 67
 Trademark Rep. 54 (1977).

 On the other hand, a party may not make a third-party registration of record
 simply by introducing a list of third-party registrations wherein it appears; or by
 filing a trademark search report wherein the registration is mentioned; or by
 filing a printout, from a private company's data base, of information about the
 registration; or by filing a notice of reliance together with a reproduction of the
 mark as it appeared in the Official Gazette for purposes of publication; or by
 referring to the registration in its brief or pleading (the Board does not take
 judicial notice of registrations residing in the PTO). See, for example, In re
 Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); Riceland Foods Inc. v.
 Pacific Eastern Trading Corp., 26 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 1993); Weyerhaeuser
 Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); National Football League v.
 Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212 (TTAB 1990); Kellogg Co. v. Pack'Em
 Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff'd, 951 F.2d 330, 21
 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B.
 Sport-International GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986); National Fidelity Life
 Insurance v. National Insurance Trust, 199 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1978); Wella
 Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 192 USPQ 158 (TTAB 1976), rev'd on other
 grounds, 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977); and W. R. Grace & Co.
 v. Herbert J. Meyer Industries, Inc., 190 USPQ 308 (TTAB 1976). See also
 Janet E. Rice, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Making Documents Obtained During
 Discovery and Third-Party Registrations of Record, 67 Trademark Rep. 54
 (1977). Cf. In re Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 20 USPQ2d 1761 (TTAB 1991); In
 re Golden Griddle Pancake House Ltd., 17 USPQ2d 1074 (TTAB 1990); In re
 Classic Beverage Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1383 (TTAB 1988); In re Hub Distributing,
 Inc., 218 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1983); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197
 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977); In re Certified Burglar Alarm Systems, 191 USPQ 47
 (TTAB 1976); and In re Duofold, Inc., 184 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1974). Cf. also
 TBMP 528.05(d) (for purposes of responding to a summary judgment motion
 only, a copy of a trademark search report may be sufficient to raise a genuine
 issue of material fact as to the nature and extent of third-party use of a
 particular designation).

 Even when a third-party (Federal) registration has been properly made of record,
 its probative value is limited, particularly when the issue to be determined is
 likelihood of confusion, and there is no evidence of actual use of the mark
 shown in the registration. See, for example, Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy's
 Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Seabrook Foods, Inc. v.
 Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 196 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1977); Tektronix,
 Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976); Conde
 Nast Publications, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc., 507 F.2d 1404, 184 USPQ 422
 (CCPA 1975); Spice Islands, Inc. v. Frank Tea and Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293,
 184 USPQ 35 (CCPA 1974); AMF Inc. v. American Leisure Products, Inc., 474
 F.2d 1403, 177 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1973); Red Carpet Corp. v. Johnstown
 American Enterprises, Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1404 (TTAB 1988); United Foods Inc. v.
 J.R. Simplot Co., 4 USPQ2d 1172 (TTAB 1987); Bottega Veneta, Inc. v. Volume
 Shoe Corp., 226 USPQ 964 (TTAB 1985); Pure Gold, Inc. v. Syntex (U.S.A.)
 Inc., 221 USPQ 151 (TTAB 1983), aff'd, 739 F.2d 624, 222 USPQ 741 (Fed.
 Cir. 1984); Mead Johnson & Co. v. Peter Eckes, 195 USPQ 187 (TTAB 1977);
 Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 189 USPQ 108
 (TTAB 1975); and J. David Sams, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Third Party
 Registrations in TTAB Proceedings, 72 Trademark Rep. 297, 301 (1982). A
 state registration, whether or not owned by a party, has very little, if any,
 probative value in a proceeding before the Board. See Allstate Insurance Co. v.
 DeLibro, 6 USPQ2d 1220 (TTAB 1988), and TBMP 703.02(a) and cases cited
 therein.

 703.03 Application Not Subject of Proceeding

 37 CFR 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records. Printed
 publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and official
 records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant
 to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the
 material being offered. The notice shall specify the printed publication
 (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the
 publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; indicate generally
 the relevance of the material being offered; and be accompanied by the official
 record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal
 Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Patent and Trademark
 Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence. The notice of reliance
 shall be filed during the testimony period of the party that files the notice.

 If a party to a proceeding before the Board wishes to introduce, as part of its
 evidence in the case, a copy of an application which is not the subject of the
 proceeding, the party may do so by filing, during its testimony period, a copy of
 the application, or of the portions thereof which it wishes to introduce, together
 with a notice of reliance thereon specifying the application and indicating
 generally its relevance. See 37 CFR 2.122(e); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Glamorene Products Corp. v. Earl Grissmer Co.,
 203 USPQ 1090 (TTAB 1979); and St. Louis Janitor Supply Co. v. Abso-Clean
 Chemical Co., 196 USPQ 778 (TTAB 1977). It is not necessary that the copy
 of the application, or portions thereof, filed under a notice of reliance be
 certified. See 37 CFR 2.122(e).

 An application which is not the subject of the proceeding may also be made of
 record by appropriate identification and introduction during the taking of
 testimony, or by stipulation of the parties.

 An application made of record in a Board inter partes proceeding, whether
 owned by a party or not, is generally of very limited probative value. See
 Glamorene Products Corp. v. Earl Grissmer Co., 203 USPQ 1090 (TTAB
 1979); Allied Mills, Inc. v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., 203 USPQ 390 (TTAB 1979);
 Lasek & Miller Associates v. Rubin, 201 USPQ 831 (TTAB 1978); St. Louis
 Janitor Supply Co. v. Abso-Clean Chemical Co., 196 USPQ 778 (TTAB 1977);
 Continental Specialties Corp. v. Continental Connector Corp., 192 USPQ 449
 (TTAB 1976); Andrea Radio Corp. v. Premium Import Co., 191 USPQ 232
 (TTAB 1976); and TBMP 704. However, if the application is owned by a
 party to the proceeding, the allegations made and documents and things filed in
 the application may be used as evidence against the applicant, that is, as
 admissions against interest and the like. See TBMP 704, and cases cited
 therein.

 704 Statements and Things in Application or Registration

 37 CFR 2.122(b) Application files. (1) The file of each application or
 registration specified in a declaration of interference, of each application or
 registration specified in the notice of a concurrent use registration proceeding,
 of the application against which a notice of opposition is filed, or of each
 registration against which a petition or counterclaim for cancellation is filed
 forms part of the record of the proceeding without any action by the parties
 and reference may be made to the file for any relevant and competent purpose.

 (2) The allegation in an application for registration, or in a registration, of a
 date of use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant; a date of
 use of a mark must be established by competent evidence. Specimens in the file
 of an application for registration, or in the file of a registration, are not
 evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant unless identified and
 introduced in evidence as exhibits during the period for the taking of testimony.

 While the file of a particular application or registration may be of record in a
 Board inter partes proceeding, by operation of 37 CFR 2.122(b) (see TBMP
 703.01) or otherwise, the allegations made, and documents and other things
 filed, in the application or registration are not evidence in the proceeding on
 behalf of the applicant or registrant. Allegations must be established by
 competent evidence properly adduced at trial, and the documents and other
 things in an application or registration file are not evidence, in an inter partes
 proceeding, on behalf of the applicant or registrant unless they are identified and
 introduced in evidence as exhibits during the testimony period. See: 37 CFR
 2.122(b); British Seagull Ltd. v. Brunswick Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1197 (TTAB
 1993), aff'd, Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d
 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Kellogg Co. v. Pack'Em Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d
 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff'd, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
 McDonald's Corp. v. McKinley, 13 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 1989); Edison
 Brothers Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-International GmbH, 230 USPQ 530
 (TTAB 1986); Omega SA v. Compucorp, 229 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1985); Osage
 Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 226 USPQ 905 (TTAB 1985);
 Mason Engineering & Design Corp. v. Mateson Chemical Corp., 225 USPQ
 956 (TTAB 1985); Sunbeam Corp. v. Battle Creek Equipment Co., 216 USPQ
 1101 (TTAB 1982); Eikonix Corp. v. CGR Medical Corp., 209 USPQ 607
 (TTAB 1981); Copperweld Corp. v. Arcair Co., 200 USPQ 470 (TTAB 1978);
 Dap, Inc. v. Century Industries Corp., 183 USPQ 122 (TTAB 1974); Textron
 Inc. v. Arctic Enterprises, Inc., 178 USPQ 315 (TTAB 1973); ILC Products Co.
 v. ILC, Inc., 175 USPQ 722 (TTAB 1972); Fuld Brothers, Inc. v. Carpet
 Technical Service Institute, Inc., 174 USPQ 473 (TTAB 1972); and W. T. Grant
 Co. v. Grant Avenue Fashions, Inc., 135 USPQ 273 (TTAB 1962). This is
 because the adverse party has a right to confront and cross-examine the person
 making the allegations, and to question the authenticity of the specimens,
 documents, exhibits, etc. See ILC Products Co. v. ILC, Inc., 175 USPQ 722
 (TTAB 1972); Fuld Brothers, Inc. v. Carpet Technical Service Institute, Inc.,
 174 USPQ 473 (TTAB 1972); and W. T. Grant Co. v. Grant Avenue Fashions,
 Inc., 135 USPQ 273 (TTAB 1962).

 Thus, for example, the allegation in an application or registration of a date of
 use is not evidence on behalf of the applicant or registrant in an inter partes
 proceeding; to be relied on by the applicant or registrant, a claimed date of use
 of a mark must be established by competent evidence. See 37 CFR
 2.122(b)(2). See also Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear Inc., 28
 USPQ2d 1464 (TTAB 1993); Omega SA v. Compucorp, 229 USPQ 191 (TTAB
 1985); Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 226 USPQ 905
 (TTAB 1985); and Textron Inc. v. Arctic Enterprises, Inc., 178 USPQ 315
 (TTAB 1973). Similarly, the allegations of use in a third-party registration do
 not constitute evidence that the mark shown therein has actually been used. See
 37 CFR 2.122(b)(2), and Alpha Industries, Inc. v. Alpha Microsystems, 223
 USPQ 96 (TTAB 1984). See also, for example, Helene Curtis Industries Inc. v.
 Suave Shoe Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 1989); Chemical New York Corp.
 v. Conmar Form Systems, Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1986); and Economics
 Laboratory, Inc. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 224 USPQ 512 (TTAB 1984).

 The specimens in the file of an application or registration are not evidence on
 behalf of the applicant or registrant, in an inter partes proceeding, unless they
 are identified and introduced in evidence as exhibits during the testimony
 period. See: 37 CFR 2.122(b)(2); Mason Engineering & Design Corp. v.
 Mateson Chemical Corp., 225 USPQ 956 (TTAB 1985); Eikonix Corp. v. CGR
 Medical Corp., 209 USPQ 607 (TTAB 1981); and Dap, Inc. v. Century
 Industries Corp., 183 USPQ 122 (TTAB 1974).

 Affidavits or declarations in an application or registration file cannot be relied
 upon by the applicant or registrant, in an inter partes proceeding, as evidence of
 the truth of the statements contained therein; the statements must be established
 by competent evidence at trial. See British Seagull Ltd. v. Brunswick Corp., 28
 USPQ2d 1197 (TTAB 1993), aff'd, Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35
 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994); McDonald's Corp. v. McKinley,
 13 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 1989), and Sunbeam Corp. v. Battle Creek Equipment
 Co., 216 USPQ 1101 (TTAB 1982). Similarly, statements made by counsel,
 and exhibits filed, in an application or registration do not constitute admissible
 evidence in the applicant's or registrant's behalf in an inter partes proceeding;
 the statements must be established by competent evidence, and the exhibits
 must be properly identified and introduced in evidence, at trial. See W. T. Grant
 Co. v. Grant Avenue Fashions, Inc., 135 USPQ 273 (TTAB 1962).

 Further, the fact that the file of an application or registration which is the
 subject of a Board inter partes proceeding is automatically of record in that
 proceeding, does not mean that a registration claimed by applicant or registrant
 in the application or registration is also automatically of record. See Curtice-
 Burns, Inc. v. Northwest Sanitation Products, Inc., 530 F.2d 1396, 189 USPQ
 138 (CCPA 1976); Edison Brothers Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-
 International GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986); Allied Mills, Inc. v. Kal
 Kan Foods, Inc., 203 USPQ 390 (TTAB 1979); and Copperweld Corp. v. Arcair
 Co., 200 USPQ 470 (TTAB 1978).

 Although the allegations made and documents and things filed in an application
 or registration are not evidence, in a Board inter partes proceeding, on behalf of
 the applicant or registrant (unless they are properly proved at trial), they may be
 used as evidence against the applicant or registrant, that is, as admissions
 against interest and the like. See Mason Engineering & Design Corp. v.
 Mateson Chemical Corp., 225 USPQ 956 (TTAB 1985) (specimens and other
 materials in applicant's application used as evidence of meaning of applicant's
 recitation of services, and that those services are not "substantially identical" to
 goods in applicant's subsisting registration of mark), and Eikonix Corp. v. CGR
 Medical Corp., 209 USPQ 607 (TTAB 1981) (information in specimens in
 respondent's registration used as evidence of relationship between respondent's
 and petitioner's goods). See also, for example, Hydro-Dynamics Inc. v. George
 Putnam & Co., 811 F.2d 1470, 1 USPQ2d 1772 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (applicant
 which seeks to prove date of first use earlier than that stated in its application
 must do so by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by preponderance of
 the evidence, because of change of position from one "considered to have been
 made against interest at the time of filing of the application"); Specialty Brands,
 Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 223 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir.
 1984) (statements in application file illustrate the variety of images that may be
 attributed to, and commercial impression projected by, applicant's mark);
 Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 576 F.2d 926, 198 USPQ
 151 (CCPA 1978) (fact that party took position in its application inconsistent
 with its position in inter partes proceeding may be considered as evidence
 "illuminative of shade and tone in the total picture confronting the decision
 maker"); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C. J. Webb, Inc., 442 F.2d 1376, 170 USPQ
 35 (CCPA 1971) (specimens in application with typed drawing illustrate one
 form in which mark may be used); and American Rice, Inc. v. H.I.T. Corp., 231
 USPQ 793 (TTAB 1986) (fact that party took position in its application
 inconsistent with its position in inter partes proceeding may be considered as
 evidence, although earlier inconsistent position does not give rise to an
 estoppel).

 705 Exhibits to Pleadings or Briefs

 705.01 Exhibits to Pleadings

 37 CFR 2.122(c) Exhibits to pleadings. Except as provided in paragraph
 (d)(1) of this section, an exhibit attached to a pleading is not evidence on behalf
 of the party to whose pleading the exhibit is attached unless identified and
 introduced in evidence as an exhibit during the period for the taking of
 testimony.

 37 CFR 2.122(d) Registrations. (1) A registration of the opposer or petitioner
 pleaded in an opposition or petition to cancel will be received in evidence and
 made part of the record if the opposition or petition is accompanied by two
 copies of the registration prepared and issued by the Patent and Trademark
 Office showing both the current status of and current title to the registration.
 For the cost of a copy of a registration showing status and title, see 2.6(n).

 With one exception, exhibits attached to a pleading are not evidence on behalf
 of the party to whose pleading they are attached unless they are thereafter,
 during the time for taking testimony, properly identified and introduced in
 evidence as exhibits. See 37 CFR 2.122(c), and TBMP 313 and cases cited
 therein.

 The one exception is a current status and title copy, prepared by the PTO, of a
 plaintiff's pleaded registration. When a plaintiff submits such a status and title
 copy of its pleaded registration as an exhibit to its complaint, the registration
 will be received in evidence and made part ot the record without any further
 action by plaintiff. See 37 CFR 2.122(c) and (d)(1), and TBMP 703.02(a).

 705.02 Exhibits to Briefs

 Exhibits and other evidentiary materials attached to a party's brief on the case
 can be given no consideration unless they were properly made of record during
 the time for taking testimony. See, for example, Maytag Co. v. Luskin's, Inc.,
 228 USPQ 747 (TTAB 1986); Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker Industries,
 Inc., 222 USPQ 1003 (TTAB 1984); BL Cars Ltd. v. Puma Industria de
 Veiculos S/A, 221 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983); Plus Products v. Physicians
 Formula Cosmetics, Inc., 198 USPQ 111 (TTAB 1978); Astec Industries, Inc. v.
 Barber-Greene Co., 196 USPQ 578 (TTAB 1977); Angelica Corp. v. Collins &
 Aikman Corp., 192 USPQ 387 (TTAB 1976); L. Leichner (London) Ltd. v.
 Robbins, 189 USPQ 254 (TTAB 1975); American Crucible Products Co. v.
 Kenco Engineering Co., 188 USPQ 529 (TTAB 1975); Tektronix, Inc. v.
 Daktronics, Inc., 187 USPQ 588 (TTAB 1975), aff'd, 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ
 693 (CCPA 1976); Curtice-Burns, Inc. v. Northwest Sanitation Products, Inc.,
 185 USPQ 61 (TTAB 1975), aff'd, 530 F.2d 1396, 189 USPQ 138 (CCPA
 1976); and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp., 178
 USPQ 429 (TTAB 1973).

 If, after the close of the time for taking testimony, a party discovers new
 evidence which it wishes to introduce in its behalf, the party may file a motion
 to reopen its testimony period. However, the moving party must show not only
 that the proposed evidence has been newly discovered, but also that it could not
 have been discovered earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence. See
 TBMP 509.01, and cases cited therein.

 706 Statements in Pleadings or Briefs

 706.01 Statements in Pleadings

 Statements made in pleadings cannot be considered as evidence in behalf of the
 party making them; such statements must be established by competent evidence
 during the time for taking testimony. See Kellogg Co. v. Pack'Em Enterprises
 Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff'd, 951 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142
 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Sutcliff, 205 USPQ 656
 (TTAB 1979).

 However, statements in pleadings may have evidentiary value as admissions
 against interest by the party which made them. See Maremont Corp. v. Air Lift
 Co., 463 F.2d 1114, 174 USPQ 395 (CCPA 1972); Bakers Franchise Corp. v.
 Royal Crown Cola Co., 404 F.2d 985, 160 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1969); Kellogg
 Co. v. Pack'Em Enterprises Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1545 (TTAB 1990), aff'd, 951
 F.2d 330, 21 USPQ2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. J.
 G. Furniture Co., 196 USPQ 711 (TTAB 1977); and Brown Co. v. American
 Stencil Manufacturing Co., 180 USPQ 344 (TTAB 1973).

 706.02 Statements in Briefs

 Factual statements made in a party's brief on the case can be given no
 consideration unless they are supported by evidence properly introduced at trial.
 Statements in a brief have no evidentiary value, except to the extent that they
 may serve as admissions against interest. See, for example, Electronic Data
 Systems Corp. v. EDSA Micro Corp., 23 USPQ2d 1460 (TTAB 1992); BL Cars
 Ltd. v. Puma Industria de Veiculos S/A, 221 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983); Abbott
 Laboratories v. Tac Industries, Inc., 217 USPQ 819 (TTAB 1981); Hecon Corp.
 v. Magnetic Video Corp., 199 USPQ 502 (TTAB 1978); and Plus Products v.
 Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc., 198 USPQ 111 (TTAB 1978). Cf.
 Martahus v. Video Duplication Services Inc., 3 F.3d 417, 27 USPQ2d 1846
 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and In re Simulations Publications, Inc., 521 F.2d 797, 187
 USPQ 147 (CCPA 1975).

 707 Official Records

 37 CFR 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records. Printed
 publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and official
 records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant
 to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the
 material being offered. The notice shall specify the printed publication
 (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the
 publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; indicate generally
 the relevance of the material being offered; and be accompanied by the official
 record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal
 Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Patent and Trademark
 Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence. The notice of reliance
 shall be filed during the testimony period of the party that files the notice.

 A party which wishes to introduce an official record in evidence in a Board
 inter partes proceeding may do so, if the official record is competent evidence
 and relevant to an issue in the proceeding, by filing a notice of reliance thereon
 during its testimony period. The notice must specify the official record and the
 pages to be read; indicate generally the relevance of the material being offered;
 and be accompanied by the official record or a copy thereof whose authenticity
 is established under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 CFR 2.122(e). See
 also Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Questor Corp.
 v. Dan Robbins & Associates, Inc., 199 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1978), aff'd, 599
 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100 (CCPA 1979); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. California
 Business News, Inc., 223 USPQ 164 (TTAB 1984); Conde Nast Publications
 Inc. v. Vogue Travel, Inc., 205 USPQ 579 (TTAB 1979); Plus Products v.
 Natural Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1979); and May Department
 Stores Co. v. Prince, 200 USPQ 803 (TTAB 1978). For information concerning
 establishing the authenticity, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, of an official
 record, see FRE 901(a), 901(b)(7), and 902(4) (the latter rule provides, in effect,
 that extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is
 not required with respect to a properly certified copy of an official record, and
 describes the requirements for proper certification). A copy of an official record
 of the PTO need not be certified to be offered in evidence by notice of reliance.
 See 37 CFR 2.122(e).

 In lieu of the actual "official record or a copy thereof," the notice of reliance
 may be accompanied by an electronically generated document (or a copy
 thereof) which is the equivalent of the official record, and whose authenticity is
 established under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
 Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992). Cf. TBMP 708.

 The term "official records," as used in 37 CFR 2.122(e), refers not to a party's
 company business records, but rather to the records of public offices or
 agencies, or records kept in the performance of duty by a public officer. See
 Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition, 1979); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); and Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue
 Travel, Inc., 205 USPQ 579 (TTAB 1979). See also FRE 902(4). For
 examples of cases concerning the admissibility of specific documents, by notice
 of reliance, as "official records" under 37 CFR 2.122(e), see Riceland Foods
 Inc. v. Pacific Eastern Trading Corp., 26 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 1993)
 (trademark search report--no); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230
 (TTAB 1992) (trademark search reports--no); Burns Philip Food Inc. v. Modern
 Products Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1157 (TTAB 1992), aff'd, 28 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed.
 Cir. 1993) (trademark search report--no; third-party registrations--yes); Osage
 Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 226 USPQ 905 (TTAB 1985)
 (copy of cancellation proceeding file--yes; party's file copies of documents filed
 in the PTO--no); Cadence Industries Corp. v. Kerr, 225 USPQ 331 (TTAB
 1985) (letters between counsel for parties, and list of party's licensees--no);
 Mack Trucks, Inc. v. California Business News, Inc., 223 USPQ 164 (TTAB
 1984) (third-party registrations--yes); Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti
 Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983) (portions of an
 agreement between applicant and a third party, and a shipping document for
 applicant's product--no); Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue Travel, Inc., 205
 USPQ 579 (TTAB 1979) (copy of letter from Amtrak to applicant
 congratulating applicant for having an appointment as an Amtrak agent, copy of
 a "Passenger Sales Agency Agreement" between the International Air Transport
 Association and applicant, etc.--no); Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Riceland
 Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979) (promotional literature--no); May
 Department Stores Co. v. Prince, 200 USPQ 803 (TTAB 1978) (certified copies
 of corporate records maintained by Secretary of State of Missouri--yes);
 Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Estates, Inc., 195 USPQ 658
 (TTAB 1977) (plat plan, deed of realty, and confirmatory assignment--not
 admissible by notice of reliance as official record because not authenticated);
 Quaker Oats Co. v. Acme Feed Mills, Inc., 192 USPQ 653 (TTAB 1976) (third-
 party registrations--yes); Harzfeld's, Inc. v. Joseph M. Feldman, Inc., 184 USPQ
 692 (TTAB 1974) (file history of party's registration--yes); Jetzon Tire &
 Rubber Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 177 USPQ 467 (TTAB 1973) (drawings
 from Federal trademark applications--yes); and American Optical Corp. v.
 American Olean Tile Co., 169 USPQ 123 (TTAB 1971) (certificate of good
 standing from a United States district court--yes).

 Although official records may be made of record by notice of reliance under 37
 CFR 2.122(e), it is not mandatory that they be introduced in this manner.
 They may, alternatively, be made of record by appropriate identification and
 introduction during the taking of testimony, or by stipulation of the parties. See
 Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1984); Hayes
 Microcomputer Products, Inc. v. Business Computer Corp., 219 USPQ 634
 (TTAB 1983); and Regent Standard Forms, Inc. v. Textron Inc., 172 USPQ 379
 (TTAB 1971). These latter two methods may also be used for the introduction
 of official records which are not admissible by notice of reliance under 37 CFR
 2.122(e). See, for example, Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti
 Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983). Cf. Midwest Plastic
 Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1267 (TTAB
 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and Minnesota
 Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Stryker Corp., 179 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1973).

 For information concerning the raising of objections to notices of reliance and
 materials filed thereunder, see TBMP 533 and 718.02.

 Materials improperly offered under 37 CFR 2.122(e) may nevertheless be
 considered by the Board if the adverse party (parties) does not object thereto,
 and/or itself treats the materials as being of record. See, for example, U.S. West
 Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1307 (TTAB 1990) (improper subject
 matter); Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 12
 USPQ2d 1267 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
 1990) (improper subject matter); Original Appalachian Artworks Inc. v. Streeter,
 3 USPQ2d 1717 (TTAB 1987) (improper subject matter, and advertisement not
 sufficiently identified); Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1
 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986) (improper subject matter, and improper rebuttal);
 Jeanne-Marc, Inc. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 221 USPQ 58 (TTAB 1984)
 (improper subject matter); Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue Travel, Inc.,
 205 USPQ 579 (TTAB 1979) (improper subject matter); and Plus Products v.
 Natural Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1979) (untimely). Cf. Hunt-
 Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979)
 (improper subject matter excluded, although no objection).

 708 Printed Publications

 37 CFR 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records. Printed
 publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and official
 records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant
 to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the
 material being offered. The notice shall specify the printed publication
 (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the
 publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; indicate generally
 the relevance of the material being offered; and be accompanied by the official
 record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal
 Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Patent and Trademark
 Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence. The notice of reliance
 shall be filed during the testimony period of the party that files the notice.

 Certain types of printed publications may be introduced in evidence in a Board
 inter partes proceeding by notice of reliance. Specifically, printed publications,
 such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in libraries or of
 general circulation among members of the public or that segment of the public
 which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, if the publication is competent
 evidence and relevant to an issue in the proceeding, may be introduced in
 evidence by filing a notice of reliance thereon during the testimony period of the
 offering party. The notice must specify the printed publication, including
 information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the publication, and
 the pages to be read; indicate generally the relevance of the material being
 offered; and be accompanied by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. See 37 CFR 2.122(e). See also Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); Questor Corp. v. Dan Robbins & Associates, Inc.,
 199 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1978), aff'd, 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100 (CCPA
 1979); Original Appalachian Artworks Inc. v. Streeter, 3 USPQ2d 1717 (TTAB
 1987); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB
 1986); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. California Business News, Inc., 223 USPQ 164
 (TTAB 1984); Plus Products v. Natural Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB
 1979); Glamorene Products Corp. v. Earl Grissmer Co., 203 USPQ 1090
 (TTAB 1979); Chicken Delight, Inc. v. Delight Wholesale Co., 197 USPQ 630
 (TTAB 1977); Wagner Electric Corp. v. Raygo Wagner, Inc., 192 USPQ 33
 (TTAB 1976); Manpower, Inc. v. Manpower Information Inc., 190 USPQ 18
 (TTAB 1976); and Jetzon Tire & Rubber Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 177
 USPQ 467 (TTAB 1973).

 In lieu of the actual "printed publication or a copy of the relevant portion
 thereof," the notice of reliance may be accompanied by an electronically
 generated document which is the equivalent of the printed publication or
 relevant portion thereof, as, for example, by a printout from Mead Data Central's
 Nexis computerized library of an article published in a newspaper or magazine
 of general circulation. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB
 1992); R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 226
 USPQ 169 (TTAB 1985), and International Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc. v. H.
 Marvin Ginn Corp., 225 USPQ 940 (TTAB 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 782
 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Cf. TBMP 707, and In re Omaha
 National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

 In case of reasonable doubt as to whether printed publications submitted by
 notice of reliance under 37 CFR 2.122(e) are "available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue" in the proceeding, the burden of
 showing that they are so available lies with the offering party. See Glamorene
 Products Corp. v. Earl Grissmer Co., 203 USPQ 1090 (TTAB 1979).

 For examples of cases concerning the admissibility of specific materials, by
 notice of reliance, as "printed publications" under 37 CFR 2.122(e), see
 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992) (trademark search
 reports--no); Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc.,
 12 USPQ2d 1267 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed.
 Cir. 1990) (annual reports--no); Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing
 Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986) (conference papers, dissertations, and
 journal papers--no); Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo
 Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983) (press releases--no); Jeanne-Marc,
 Inc. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 221 USPQ 58 (TTAB 1984) (annual reports--no);
 Logicon, Inc. v. Logisticon, Inc., 205 USPQ 767 (TTAB 1980) (annual report--
 no; magazine articles--yes); Glamorene Products Corp. v. Earl Grissmer Co.,
 203 USPQ 1090 (TTAB 1979) (promotional literature--no); Hunt-Wesson Foods,
 Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979) (promotional
 literature--no); Wagner Electric Corp. v. Raygo Wagner, Inc., 192 USPQ 33
 (TTAB 1976) (catalogs and other house publications--no); Andrea Radio Corp.
 v. Premium Import Co., 191 USPQ 232 (TTAB 1976) (annual reports,
 promotional brochures, price list, reprints of advertisements, and copies of
 advertising mats--no); Manpower, Inc. v. Manpower Information Inc., 190
 USPQ 18 (TTAB 1976) (telephone directory pages, indexes from United States
 Code Annotated, and dictionary pages--yes); Litton Industries, Inc. v. Litronix,
 Inc., 188 USPQ 407 (TTAB 1975) (annual reports--no); Exxon Corp. v. Fill-R-
 Up Systems, Inc., 182 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1974) (credit card applications,
 handouts, and flyers--no; articles from trade publications and other magazines--
 yes); Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Stryker Corp., 179 USPQ 433
 (TTAB 1973) (annual reports, product booklets, and product brochures--no); and
 Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp., 178 USPQ 429
 (TTAB 1973) (article from "Memoirs of the University of California"--no, since
 publication not shown to be available to the general public).

 Printed publications made of record by notice of reliance under 37 CFR
 2.122(e) are admissible, and probative, merely for what they show on their
 face, not for the truth of the matters contained therein, unless a competent
 witness has testified to the truth of such matters. See, for example, Gravel
 Cologne, Inc. v. Lawrence Palmer, Inc., 469 F.2d 1397, 176 USPQ 123 (CCPA
 1972); Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 12
 USPQ2d 1267 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
 1990); Logicon, Inc. v. Logisticon, Inc., 205 USPQ 767 (TTAB 1980);
 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Ridewell Corp., 201 USPQ 404 (TTAB
 1978); Food Producers, Inc. v. Swift & Co., 194 USPQ 299 (TTAB 1977);
 Wagner Electric Corp. v. Raygo Wagner, Inc., 192 USPQ 33 (TTAB 1976);
 Litton Industries, Inc. v. Litronix, Inc., 188 USPQ 407 (TTAB 1975); Otis
 Elevator Co. v. Echlin Manufacturing Co., 187 USPQ 310 (TTAB 1975); Exxon
 Corp. v. Fill-R-Up Systems, Inc., 182 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1974).

 Although the types of printed publications described above may be made of
 record by notice of reliance under 37 CFR 2.122(e), it is not mandatory that
 they be introduced in this manner. They may, alternatively, be made of record
 by appropriate identification and introduction during the taking of testimony, or
 by stipulation of the parties. See Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ
 845 (TTAB 1984), and Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. v. Business
 Computer Corp., 219 USPQ 634 (TTAB 1983). These latter two methods may
 also be used for the introduction of printed publications which are not
 admissible by notice of reliance under 37 CFR 2.122(e). See, for example,
 Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 12 USPQ2d
 1267 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
 Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221
 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983); and Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Stryker
 Corp., 179 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1973).

 For information concerning the raising of objections to notices of reliance and
 materials filed thereunder, see TBMP 533 and 718.02.

 Materials improperly offered under 37 CFR 2.122(e) may nevertheless be
 considered by the Board if the adverse party (parties) does not object thereto,
 and/or itself treats the materials as being of record. See, for example, U.S. West
 Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1307 (TTAB 1990) (improper subject
 matter); Midwest Plastic Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 12
 USPQ2d 1267 (TTAB 1989), aff'd, 906 F.2d 1568, 15 USPQ2d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
 1990) (improper subject matter); Original Appalachian Artworks Inc. v. Streeter,
 3 USPQ2d 1717 (TTAB 1987) (improper subject matter, and advertisement not
 sufficiently identified); Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1
 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986) (improper subject matter, and improper rebuttal);
 Jeanne-Marc, Inc. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 221 USPQ 58 (TTAB 1984)
 (improper subject matter); Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Vogue Travel, Inc.,
 205 USPQ 579 (TTAB 1979) (improper subject matter); and Plus Products v.
 Natural Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1979) (untimely). Cf. Hunt-
 Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979)
 (improper subject matter excluded, although no objection).

 709 Discovery Depositions

 37 CFR 2.120(j) Use of discovery deposition, answer to interrogatory, or
 admission. (1) The discovery deposition of a party or of anyone who at the
 time of taking the deposition was an officer, director or managing agent of a
 party, or a person designated by a party pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) or Rule
 31(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may be offered in evidence by an
 adverse party.

 (2) Except as provided in paragrpah (j)(1) of this section, the discovery
 deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, shall not be offered in evidence
 unless the person whose deposition was taken is, during the testimony period of
 the party offering the deposition, dead; or out of the United States (unless it
 appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the
 deposition); or unable to testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or
 imprisonment; or cannot be served with a subpoena to compel attendance at a
 testimonial deposition; or there is a stipulation by the parties; or upon a
 showing that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the
 interest of justice, to allow the deposition to be used. The use of a discovery
 deposition by any party under this paragraph will be allowed only by stipulation
 of the parties approved by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or by order
 of the Board on motion, which shall be filed at the time of the purported offer of
 the deposition in evidence, unless the motion is based upon a claim that such
 exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice,
 to allow the deposition to be used, in which case the motion shall be filed
 promptly after the circumstances claimed to justify use of the deposition became
 known.

 (3)(i) A discovery deposition, an answer to an interrogatory, or an admission to
 a request for admission, which may be offered in evidence under the provisions
 of paragraph (j) of this section may be made of record in the case by filing the
 deposition or any part thereof with any exhibit to the part that is filed, or a
 copy of the interrogatory and answer thereto with any exhibit made part of the
 answer, or a copy of the request for admission and any exhibit thereto and the
 admission (or a statement that the party from which an admission was requested
 failed to respond thereto), together with a notice of reliance. The notice of
 reliance and the material submitted thereunder should be filed during the
 testimony period of the party which files the notice of reliance. An objection
 made at a discovery deposition by a party answering a question subject to the
 objection will be considered at final hearing.

 * * *

 (4) If only part of a discovery deposition is submitted and made part of the
 record by a party, an adverse party may introduce under a notice of reliance
 any other part of the deposition which should in fairness be considered so as to
 make not misleading what was offered by the submitting party. A notice of
 reliance filed by an adverse party must be supported by a written statement
 explaining why the adverse party needs to rely upon each additional part listed
 in the adverse party's notice, failing which the Board, in its discretion, may
 refuse to consider the additional parts.

 * * *

 (6) Paragraph (j) of this section will not be interpreted to preclude the reading
 or the use of a discovery deposition, or answer to an interrogatory, or
 admission as part of the examination or cross-examination of any witness
 during the testimony period of any party.

 (7) When a discovery deposition, or a part thereof, or an answer to an
 interrogatory, or an admission, has been made of record by one party in
 accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of this section, it may be
 referred to by any party for any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of
 Evidence.

 (8) Requests for discovery, responses thereto, and materials or depositions
 obtained through the discovery process should not be filed with the Board
 except when submitted with a motion relating to discovery, or in support of or
 response to a motion for summary judgment, or under a notice of reliance
 during a party's testimony period. Papers or materials filed in violation of this
 paragraph may be returned by the Board.

 The discovery deposition of a party (or of anyone who, at the time of taking the
 depositioon, was an officer, director, or managing agent of a party, or a person
 designated under FRCP 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(3) to testify on behalf of a party) may
 be offered in evidence by any adverse party. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(1). See
 also Hilson Research Inc. v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27
 USPQ2d 1423 (TTAB 1993); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25
 USPQ2d 1321 (TTAB 1992); First International Services Corp. v. Chuckles
 Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1628 (TTAB 1988); Fort Howard Paper Co. v. C.V. Gambina
 Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1552 (TTAB 1987); Dynamark Corp. v. Weed Eaters, Inc., 207
 USPQ 1026 (TTAB 1980); Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203
 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); Johnson Publishing Co. v. Cavin & Tubiana OHG,
 196 USPQ 383 (TTAB 1977); Ethicon, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 192
 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1976); Coca-Cola Co. v. Seven-Up Co., 175 USPQ 491
 (Comm'r 1972); and Clairol Inc. v. Holland Hall Products, Inc., 165 USPQ 214
 (TTAB 1970).

 Otherwise, the discovery deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may
 not be offered in evidence except in the following situations:

 (1) By stipulation of the parties, approved by the
 Board. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(2).

 (2) By order of the Board, on motion showing that the
 person whose deposition was taken is, during the testimony period of the party
 offering the deposition, dead; or out of the United States (unless it appears that
 the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition); or
 unable to testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or cannot be
 served with a subpoena to compel attendance at a testimonial deposition; or that
 such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of
 justice, to allow the deposition to be used. The motion must be filed at the time
 of the purported offer of the deposition in evidence, unless the motion is based
 upon a claim that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable,
 in the interest of justice, to allow the deposition to be used, in which case the
 motion must be filed promptly after the circumstances claimed to justify use of
 the deposition became known. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(2). See also Hilson
 Research Inc. v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423
 (TTAB 1993); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321
 (TTAB 1992); Marion Laboratories Inc. v. Biochemical/Diagnostics Inc., 6
 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 1988); First International Services Corp. v. Chuckles
 Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1628 (TTAB 1988); Fort Howard Paper Co. v. C.V. Gambina
 Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1552 (TTAB 1987); Maytag Co. v. Luskin's, Inc., 228 USPQ
 747 (TTAB 1986); Lutz Superdyne, Inc. v. Arthur Brown & Bro., Inc., 221
 USPQ 354 (TTAB 1984); Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203
 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); National Fidelity Life Insurance v. National Insurance
 Trust, 199 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1978); and Insta-Foam Products, Inc. v. Instapak
 Corp., 189 USPQ 793 (TTAB 1976).

 (3) If only part of a discovery deposition is submitted
 and made part of the record by a party entitled to offer the deposition in
 evidence, an adverse party may introduce under a notice of reliance any other
 part of the deposition which should in fairness be considered so as to make not
 misleading what was offered by the submitting party. In such a case, the notice
 of reliance filed by the adverse party must be supported by a written statement
 explaining why the adverse party needs to rely upon each additional part listed
 in the adverse party's notice, failing which the Board, in its discretion, may
 refuse to consider the additional parts. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(4). See also
 Wear-Guard Corp. v. Van Dyne-Crotty Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1804 (TTAB 1990),
 aff'd, 926 F.2d 1156, 17 USPQ2d 1866 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Marion Laboratories
 Inc. v. Biochemical/Diagnostics Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 1988); First
 International Services Corp. v. Chuckles Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1628 (TTAB 1988);
 Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1445
 (TTAB 1986); Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. v. Soulful Days, Inc., 228 USPQ 954
 (TTAB 1985); Dynamark Corp. v. Weed Eaters, Inc., 207 USPQ 1026 (TTAB
 1980); Johnson Publishing Co. v. Cavin & Tubiana OHG, 196 USPQ 383
 (TTAB 1977); and Rogers Corp. v. Fields Plastics & Chemicals, Inc., 172
 USPQ 377 (TTAB 1972).

 A discovery deposition which may be offered in evidence under the provisions
 of 37 CFR 2.120(j) may be made of record by filing, during the testimony
 period of the offering party, the deposition or any part thereof with any exhibit
 to the part that is filed, together with a notice of reliance thereon. See 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(3)(i). See also BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Polychrome Corp., 586 F.2d
 238, 200 USPQ 20 (CCPA 1978); Marion Laboratories Inc. v.
 Biochemical/Diagnostics Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 1988); Fischer
 Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); Plus
 Products v. Don Hall Laboratories, 191 USPQ 584 (TTAB 1976); Ethicon, Inc.
 v. American Cyanamid Co., 192 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1976); Chemetron Corp. v.
 Self-Organizing Systems, Inc., 166 USPQ 495 (TTAB 1970); Clairol Inc. v.
 Holland Hall Products, Inc., 165 USPQ 214 (TTAB 1970); and American Skein
 & Foundry Co. v. Stein, 165 USPQ 85 (TTAB 1970). The notice of reliance
 need not indicate the relevance of the deposition, or parts thereof, relied on. See
 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i). Cf. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc.,
 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979). When only part of a deposition is relied on, the
 notice of reliance must specify the part or parts relied on. See Exxon Corp. v.
 Motorgas Oil & Refining Corp., 219 USPQ 440 (TTAB 1983).

 When a discovery deposition has been made of record by one party in
 accordance with 37 CFR 2.120(j), it may be referred to by any party for any
 purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(7).
 See also Chesebrough-Pond's Inc. v. Soulful Days, Inc., 228 USPQ 954 (TTAB
 1985); Andersen Corp. v. Therm-O-Shield Int'l, Inc., 226 USPQ 431 (TTAB
 1985); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Major Mud & Chemical Co., 221 USPQ 1191
 (TTAB 1984); and Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. SmithKline Corp., 189 USPQ 290
 (TTAB 1975). If only part of a discovery deposition has been made of record
 pursuant to 37 CFR 2.120(j), that part only may be referred to by any party for
 any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of evidence. If one party has filed
 a notice of reliance on a discovery deposition or part thereof and an adverse
 party has based its presentation of evidence on the belief that the deposition or
 the part thereof is of record, the notice of reliance may not later be withdrawn.
 See Exxon Corp. v. Motorgas Oil & Refining Corp., 219 USPQ 440 (TTAB
 1983).

 A discovery deposition not properly offered in evidence under 37 CFR 2.120(j)
 may nevertheless be considered by the Board if the nonoffering party (parties)
 does not object thereto, and/or treats the deposition as being of record, and/or
 improperly offers a discovery deposition in the same manner. See, for example,
 Spoons Restaurants Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735 (TTAB 1990); Lutz
 Superdyne, Inc. v. Arthur Brown & Bro., Inc., 221 USPQ 354 (TTAB 1984);
 Hamilton Burr Publishing Co. v. E. W. Communications, Inc., 216 USPQ 802
 (TTAB 1982); Pamex Foods, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods Co., 201 USPQ 308
 (TTAB 1978); and Plus Products v. Don Hall Laboratories, 191 USPQ 584
 (TTAB 1976).

 Requests for discovery, responses thereto, and materials or depositions obtained
 through the discovery process should not be filed with the Board except when
 submitted (1) with a motion relating to discovery; or (2) in support of or
 response to a motion for summary judgment; or (3) under a notice of reliance
 during a party's testimony period; or (4) as exhibits to a testimony deposition; or
 (5) in support of an objection to proffered evidence on the ground that the
 evidence should have been, but was not, provided in response to a request for
 discovery; or (6) with the complaint, in the case of discovery requests, for later
 service upon the defendant, by the Board, with defendant's copies of the
 complaint and proceeding notification letter. Discovery papers or materials
 filed under other circumstances may be returned by the Board. See 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(8), and TBMP 413 and authorities cited therein.

 Nothing in 37 CFR 2.120(j) will be interpreted to preclude the reading or the
 use of a discovery deposition as part of the examination or cross-examination of
 any witness during the testimony period of any party. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(6).
 See also Steiger Tractor, Inc. v. Steiner Corp., 221 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984),
 different results reached on reh'g, 3 USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984). Cf. West End
 Brewing Co. of Utica, N.Y. v. South Australian Brewing Co., 2 USPQ2d 1306
 (TTAB 1987).

 For information concerning the taking of a discovery deposition, and the raising
 of objections thereto, see TBMP 404, 405, 533, and 718.02.

 NOTE: Some of the cases cited in this section were the predecessors to the
 cited provisions in current 37 CFR 2.120(j), or were decided under rules which
 were the predecessors to such provisions.

 710 Interrogatory Answers; Admissions

 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i) A discovery deposition, an answer to an interrogatory,
 or an admission to a request for admission, which may be offered in evidence
 under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this section may be made of record in
 the case by filing the deposition or any part thereof with any exhibit to the part
 that is filed, or a copy of the interrogatory and answer thereto with any exhibit
 made part of the answer, or a copy of the request for admission and any
 exhibit thereto and the admission (or a statement that the party from which an
 admission was requested failed to respond thereto), together with a notice of
 reliance. The notice of reliance and the material submitted thereunder should
 be filed during the testimony period of the party which files the notice of
 reliance. An objection made at a discovery deposition by a party answering a
 question subject to the objection will be considered at final hearing.

 * * *

 (5) An answer to an interrogatory, or an admission to a request for admission,
 may be submitted and made part of the record by only the inquiring party
 except that, if fewer than all of the answers to interrogatories, or fewer than all
 of the admissions, are offered in evidence by the inquiring party, the responding
 party may introduce under a notice of reliance any other answers to
 interrogatories, or any other admissions, which should in fairness be considered
 so as to make not misleading what was offered by the inquiring party. The
 notice of reliance filed by the responding party must be supported by a written
 statement explaining why the responding party needs to rely upon each of the
 additinal discovery responses listed in the responding party's notice, failing
 which the Board, in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional
 responses.

 (6) Paragraph (j) of this section will not be interpreted to preclude the reading
 or the use of a discovery deposition, or answer to an interrogatory, or
 admission as part of the examination or cross-examination of any witness
 during the testimony period of any party.

 (7) When a discovery deposition, or a part thereof, or an answer to an
 interrogatory, or an admission, has been made of record by one party in
 accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of this section, it may be
 referred to by any party for any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of
 Evidence.

 (8) Requests for discovery, responses thereto, and materials or depositions
 obtained through the discovery process should not be filed with the Board
 except when submitted with a motion relating to discovery, or in support of or
 response to a motion for summary judgment, or under a notice of reliance
 during a party's testimony period. Papers or materials filed in violation of this
 paragraph may be returned by the Board.

 Ordinarily, an answer to an interrogatory, or an admission to a request for
 admission, may be submitted and made part of the record by only the inquiring
 party. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(5). See also Triumph Machinery Co. v.
 Kentmaster Manufacturing Co., 1 USPQ2d 1826 (TTAB 1987); Wilderness
 Group, Inc. v. Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc., 222 USPQ 1012 (TTAB
 1984); Hamilton Burr Publishing Co. v. E. W. Communications, Inc., 216 USPQ
 802 (TTAB 1982); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ 949
 (TTAB 1981); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Captn's Pick, Inc., 203 USPQ 1025
 (TTAB 1979); Jerrold Electronics Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 199 USPQ 751
 (TTAB 1978); Cities Service Co. v. WMF of America, Inc., 199 USPQ 493
 (TTAB 1978); General Electric Co. v. Graham Magnetics Inc., 197 USPQ 690
 (TTAB 1977); Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Estates, Inc., 195
 USPQ 658 (TTAB 1977); A. H. Robins Co. v. Evsco Pharmaceutical Corp., 190
 USPQ 340 (TTAB 1976); W. R. Grace & Co. v. Herbert J. Meyer Industries,
 Inc., 190 USPQ 308 (TTAB 1976); and Beecham Inc. v. Helene Curtis
 Industries, Inc., 189 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1976).

 However, if fewer than all of the answers to a set of interrogatories, or fewer
 than all of the admissions, are offered in evidence by the inquiring party, the
 responding party may introduce under a notice of reliance any other answers to
 interrogatories, or any other admissions, which should in fairness be considered
 so as to make not misleading what was offered by the inquiring party. The
 notice of reliance must be supported by a written statement explaining why the
 responding party needs to rely upon each of the additional interrogatory
 answers, or admissions, listed in the responding party's notice, failing which the
 Board, in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional responses. See 37
 CFR 2.120(j)(5). See also Heaton Enterprises of Nevada Inc. v. Lang, 7
 USPQ2d 1842 (TTAB 1988); Bison Corp. v. Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 USPQ2d
 1718 (TTAB 1987); Triumph Machinery Co. v. Kentmaster Manufacturing Co.,
 1 USPQ2d 1826 (TTAB 1987); Alabama Board of Trustees v. BAMA-Werke
 Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408 (TTAB 1986); Packaging Industries Group, Inc.
 v. Great American Marketing, Inc., 227 USPQ 734 (TTAB 1985); Holiday Inns,
 Inc. v. Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1981); and Beecham Inc. v.
 Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 189 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1976).

 An interrogatory answer (including documents provided as all or part of an
 interrogatory answer), or an admission to a request for admission, which may be
 offered in evidence under the provisions of 37 CFR 2.120(j) may be made of
 record in the case by filing, during the testimony period of the offering party, a
 copy of the interrogatory and the answer thereto, with any exhibit made part of
 the answer, or a copy of the request for admission and any exhibit thereto and
 the admission (or a statement that the party from which an admission was
 requested failed to respond thereto), together with a notice of reliance thereon.
 See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i); BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Polychrome Corp., 586
 F.2d 238, 200 USPQ 20 (CCPA 1978); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17
 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990) (documents provided as interrogatory answer);
 Miles Laboratories Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1445
 (TTAB 1986) (documents provided as interrogatory answer); Hamilton Burr
 Publishing Co. v. E. W. Communications, Inc., 216 USPQ 802 (TTAB 1982);
 May Department Stores Co. v. Prince, 200 USPQ 803 (TTAB 1978); Bausch &
 Lomb Inc. v. Gentex Corp., 200 USPQ 117 (TTAB 1978); E. I. du Pont de
 Nemours & Co. v. G. C. Murphy Co., 199 USPQ 807 (TTAB 1978); Miss Nude
 Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976), pet. to Comm'r den., 198
 USPQ 485 (Comm'r 1977); Hollister Inc. v. Ident A Pet, Inc., 193 USPQ 439
 (TTAB 1976); Plus Products v. Don Hall Laboratories, 191 USPQ 584 (TTAB
 1976); and A. H. Robins Co. v. Evsco Pharmaceutical Corp., 190 USPQ 340
 (TTAB 1976). The notice of reliance need not indicate the relevance of the
 discovery responses relied on. See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i), and Hunt-Wesson
 Foods, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 201 USPQ 881 (TTAB 1979). Offering
 interrogatory answers, or admissions, on the record during the taking of a
 testimony deposition is the equivalent of serving and filing a notice of reliance
 by mail. See Lacoste Alligator S.A. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters
 Corp., 204 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1979).

 An interrogatory answer, or an admission, may also be made of record by
 stipulation of the parties, accompanied by a copy of the interrogatory and the
 answer thereto with any exhibit made part of the answer, or a copy of the
 request for admission and any exhibit thereto and the admission (or a statement
 that the party from which an admission was requested failed to respond thereto).
 See Wilderness Group, Inc. v. Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc., 222 USPQ
 1012 (TTAB 1984), and Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp., 192 USPQ
 158 (TTAB 1976), rev'd on other grounds, 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419
 (CCPA 1977). See also Jerrold Electronics Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 199 USPQ
 751 (TTAB 1978), and General Electric Co. v. Graham Magnetics Inc., 197
 USPQ 690 (TTAB 1977).

 When an interrogatory answer, or an admission, has been made of record by one
 party in accordance with 37 CFR 2.120(j), it may be referred to by any party
 for any purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(7). See also Henry Siegel Co. v. M & R International Mfg. Co., 4
 USPQ2d 1154 (TTAB 1987); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Major Mud & Chemical
 Co., 221 USPQ 1191 (TTAB 1984); and Beecham Inc. v. Helene Curtis
 Industries, Inc., 189 USPQ 647 (TTAB 1976).

 An interrogatory answer, or an admission, not properly offered in evidence
 under 37 CFR 2.120(j) may nevertheless be considered by the Board if the
 nonoffering party (parties) does not object thereto; and/or treats the answer, or
 admission, as being of record; and/or improperly offers an interrogatory answer,
 or an admission, in the same manner. See, for example, Riceland Foods Inc. v.
 Pacific Eastern Trading Corp., 26 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 1993); Heaton
 Enterprises of Nevada Inc. v. Lang, 7 USPQ2d 1842 (TTAB 1988); Triumph
 Machinery Co. v. Kentmaster Manufacturing Co., 1 USPQ2d 1826 (TTAB
 1987); Plus Products v. Natural Organics, Inc., 204 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1979);
 Pamex Foods, Inc. v. Clover Club Foods Co., 201 USPQ 308 (TTAB 1978);
 Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Captn's Pick, Inc., 203 USPQ 1025 (TTAB 1979);
 Jerrold Electronics Corp. v. Magnavox Co., 199 USPQ 751 (TTAB 1978);
 General Electric Co. v. Graham Magnetics Inc., 197 USPQ 690 (TTAB 1977);
 Plus Products v. Don Hall Laboratories, 191 USPQ 584 (TTAB 1976); and
 Plus Products v. Sterling Food Co., 188 USPQ 586 (TTAB 1975).

 Requests for discovery, responses thereto, and materials or depositions obtained
 through the discovery process should not be filed with the Board except when
 submitted (1) with a motion relating to discovery; or (2) in support of or
 response to a motion for summary judgment; or (3) under a notice of reliance
 during a party's testimony period; or (4) as exhibits to a testimony deposition; or
 (5) in support of an objection to proffered evidence on the ground that the
 evidence should have been, but was not, provided in response to a request for
 discovery; or (6) with the complaint, in the case of discovery requests, for later
 service upon the defendant, by the Board, with defendant's copies of the
 complaint and proceeding notification letter. Discovery papers or materials
 filed under other circumstances may be returned by the Board. See 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(8), and TBMP 413 and authorities cited therein.

 Nothing in 37 CFR 2.120(j) will be interpreted to preclude the reading or the
 use of an interrogatory answer, or an admission, as part of the examination or
 cross-examination of any witness during the testimony period of any party. See
 37 CFR 2.120(j)(6). See also West End Brewing Co. of Utica, N.Y. v. South
 Australian Brewing Co., 2 USPQ2d 1306 (TTAB 1987). Cf. Steiger Tractor,
 Inc. v. Steiner Corp., 221 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984), different results reached on
 reh'g, 3 USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984).

 For information concerning the taking of discovery by way of interrogatories,
 see TBMP 406 and 407. For information concerning the taking of discovery
 by way of requests for admission, see TBMP 410 and 411. For information
 concerning the raising of objections to notices of reliance and materials filed
 thereunder, see TBMP 533 and 718.02.

 NOTE: Some of the cases cited in this section were the predecessors to the
 cited provisions in current 37 CFR 2.120(j), or were decided under rules which
 were the predecessors to such provisions.

 711 Produced Documents

 37 CFR 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records. Printed
 publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general public in
 libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that segment
 of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and official
 records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and relevant
 to an issue, may be introduced in evidence by filing a notice of reliance on the
 material being offered. The notice shall specify the printed publication
 (including information sufficient to identify the source and the date of the
 publication) or the official record and the pages to be read; indicate generally
 the relevance of the material being offered; and be accompanied by the official
 record or a copy thereof whose authenticity is established under the Federal
 Rules of Evidence, or by the printed publication or a copy of the relevant
 portion thereof. A copy of an official record of the Patent and Trademark
 Office need not be certified to be offered in evidence. The notice of reliance
 shall be filed during the testimony period of the party that files the notice.

 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(ii) A party which has obtained documents from another
 party under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may not make the
 documents of record by notice of reliance alone, except to the extent that they
 are admissible by notice of reliance under the provisions of 2.122(e).

 In an inter partes proceeding before the Board, a party which has obtained
 documents from another party, under FRCP 34, may not make the produced
 documents of record by notice of reliance alone, except to the extent that they
 are admissible by notice of reliance under 37 CFR 2.122(e) (as official records;
 or as printed publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general
 public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that
 segment of the public which is relevant under an issue in the proceeding--see
 TBMP 707 and 708). See 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(ii). See also, for example, M-
 Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990); Miles
 Laboratories Inc. v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1445
 (TTAB 1986); Osage Oil & Transportation, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 226
 USPQ 905 (TTAB 1985); Jeanne-Marc, Inc. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 221
 USPQ 58 (TTAB 1984); BAF Industries v. Pro-Specialties, Inc., 206 USPQ 166
 (TTAB 1980); Autac Inc. v. Viking Industries, Inc., 199 USPQ 367 (TTAB
 1978); Southwire Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 196 USPQ 566
 (TTAB 1977); Dow Corning Corp. v. Doric Corp., 192 USPQ 106 (TTAB
 1976); Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. Red Rope Industries, Inc., 191 USPQ 119
 (TTAB 1976); MRI Systems Corp. v. Wesley-Jessen Inc., 189 USPQ 214 (TTAB
 1975); and Janet E. Rice, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Making Documents
 Obtained During Discovery and Third-Party Registrations of Record, 67
 Trademark Rep. 54 (1977).

 Listed below are a number of methods by which documents produced in
 response to a request for production of documents may be made of record:

 (1) A party which has obtained documents under FRCP 34
 may serve upon its adversary requests for admission of the authenticity of the
 documents, and then, during its testimony period, file a notice of reliance, under
 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i), on the requests for admission, the exhibits thereto, and
 its adversary's admissions (or a statement that its adversary failed to respond to
 the requests for admission). However, if a party wishes to have an opportunity
 to serve requests for admission after obtaining documents under FRCP 34, it
 must serve its request for production of documents early in the discovery period,
 so that when it obtains the produced documents, it will have time to prepare and
 serve requests for admission prior to the expiration of the discovery period. See
 TBMP 403.05(a) and 403.05(c).

 (2) A party which has obtained documents under FRCP 34
 may offer them as exhibits in connection with the taking of its adversary's
 discovery deposition. Again, however, the request for production of documents
 must be served early in the discovery period, so that there will still be time
 remaining therein, after the requested documents have been produced, to notice
 and take a discovery deposition. See TBMP 403.05(a) and 403.05(c).

 (3) A party which has obtained documents under FRCP 34
 may introduce them as exhibits during the cross-examination of its adversary's
 witness. See Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. Red Rope Industries, Inc., 191 USPQ 119
 (TTAB 1976). This method is available only if the adversary takes testimony,
 and the obtained documents pertain to matters within the scope of the direct
 examination of the witness.

 (4) A party which has obtained documents under FRCP 34
 may, during its own testimony period, take the testimony of its adversary as an
 adverse witness, and introduce the obtained documents as exhibits during direct
 examination. See Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. Red Rope Industries, Inc., 191 USPQ
 119 (TTAB 1976).

 (5) A party which has obtained documents under FRCP 34
 may, during its own testimony period, make of record by notice of reliance,
 under 37 CFR 2.122(e), any of the documents which falls into the category of
 "printed publications, such as books and periodicals, available to the general
 public in libraries or of general circulation among members of the public or that
 segment of the public which is relevant under an issue in a proceeding, and
 official records, if the publication or official record is competent evidence and
 relevant to an issue" (see: TBMP sections 707 and 708). See 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(3)(ii), and cases cited in the first paragraph of this section.

 (6) A party which wishes to obtain documents under FRCP
 34 may combine its request for production of documents with a notice of taking
 discovery deposition, and ask that the requested documents be produced at the
 deposition. However, the combined request for production and notice of
 deposition must be served well prior to the date set for the deposition, because a
 discovery deposition must be both noticed and taken prior to the close of the
 discovery period, and because FRCP 34(b) allows a party 30 days in which to
 respond to a request for production of documents (this period is lengthened to
 35 days if service of the request is made by first-class mail, "Express Mail," or
 overnight courier--see 37 CFR 2.119(c)), except that a defendant may serve
 responses either within 30 days (35 days) after service of the request, or within
 45 days after service of the complaint upon it by the Board. See TBMP
 403.05(a) and 403.05(c).

 (7) Documents obtained under FRCP 34 may be made of
 record by stipulation of the parties.

 Documents obtained by request for production of documents under FRCP 34,
 and improperly offered in evidence, may nevertheless be considered by the
 Board if the nonoffering party (parties) does not object thereto; and/or treats the
 documents as being of record; and/or in the same manner improperly offers
 documents which it obtained under FRCP 34. See, for example, Jeanne-Marc,
 Inc. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., 221 USPQ 58 (TTAB 1984); Autac Inc. v. Viking
 Industries, Inc., 199 USPQ 367 (TTAB 1978); Southwire Co. v. Kaiser
 Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 196 USPQ 566 (TTAB 1977); Harvey Hubbell,
 Inc. v. Red Rope Industries, Inc., 191 USPQ 119 (TTAB 1976). Cf. Osage Oil
 & Transportation, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 226 USPQ 905 (TTAB 1985).

 Further, documents provided as all or part of an answer to an interrogatory may
 be made of record, as an interrogatory answer, by notice of reliance filed in
 accordance with 37 CFR 2.120(j)(3)(i) and 2.120(j)(5). See M-Tek Inc. v.
 CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990), and Miles Laboratories Inc.
 v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 1986).

 For information concerning the obtaining of discovery by way of a request for
 production of documents, see TBMP 408 and 409.

 NOTE: Most of the cases cited in this section preceded 37 CFR
 2.120(j)(3)(ii).

 712 Judicial Notice

 37 CFR 2.122(a) Rules of Evidence. The rules of evidence for proceedings
 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are the Federal Rules of
 Evidence, the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
 relevant provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code, and the provisions of
 this Part of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

 FRE 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
 (a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

 (b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
 reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial
 jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination
 by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

 (c) When discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or
 not.

 (d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party
 and supplied with the necessary information.

 (e) Opportunity to be heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an
 opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the
 tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request
 may be made after judicial notice has been taken.

 (f) Time of taking notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the
 proceeding.

 In appropriate instances, the Board may take judicial notice of adjudicative
 facts. See 37 CFR 2.122(a) and FRE 201.

 712.01 Kind of Fact Which May be Judicially Noticed

 The only kind of fact which may be judicially noticed by the Board is a fact
 which is "not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally
 known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of
 accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
 reasonably be questioned." See FRE 201(b). See also, for example, B.V.D.
 Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719
 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Amalgamated Bank of New York v. Amalgamated Trust &
 Savings Bank, 842 F.2d 1270, 6 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Wella Corp. v.
 California Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977); Omega
 SA v. Compucorp, 229 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1985); and United States National
 Bank of Oregon v. Midwest Savings and Loan Ass'n, 194 USPQ 232 (TTAB
 1977).

 For examples of decisions concerning whether particular facts are appropriate
 subject matter for judicial notice by the Board, see B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v.
 Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 6 USPQ2d 1719 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
 (dictionary definition of term as trademark--yes, indicates mark is reasonably
 famous; also, encyclopedias may be consulted); Wella Corp. v. California
 Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977) (home cold
 permanent wave kits have for many years been sold directly to nonprofessional
 consumers through retail outlets--yes); Pinocchio's Pizza Inc. v. Sandra Inc., 11
 USPQ2d 1227 (TTAB 1989) (Catonsville, Maryland is located between
 Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.--yes); Los Angeles Bonaventure Co.
 v. Bonaventure Associates, 4 USPQ2d 1882 (TTAB 1987) (whether other
 companies have expanded from restaurant services to hotel services under a
 single mark, and, if so, when--no); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft
 Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1986) (files of applications and/or registrations,
 where no copies thereof are filed, and they are not the subject of the
 proceeding--no); Hertz System, Inc. v. A-Drive Corp., 222 USPQ2d 625 (TTAB
 1984) (the numeral "1" is widely used to indicate superiority--yes); Abbott
 Laboratories v. Tac Industries, Inc., 217 USPQ 819 (TTAB 1981) (use of
 antimicrobial agents in the floor covering industry--no); University of Notre
 Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB
 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (dictionary
 definitions--yes); Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. v. American Can Co., 212 USPQ 852
 (TTAB 1981) (dictionary definitions--yes); Sprague Electric Co. v. Electrical
 Utilities Co., 209 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1980) (standard reference works--yes);
 General Mills Fun Group, Inc. v. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc., 204 USPQ 396
 (TTAB 1979), aff'd, Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.,
 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981) (frequent use of famous
 marks on collateral products such as clothing, glassware, trash cans, etc.--yes);
 Cities Service Co. v. WMF of America, Inc., 199 USPQ 493 (TTAB 1978)
 (third-party registrations and listings in trade directories, where no copies thereof
 are submitted--no); Quaker Oats Co. v. Acme Feed Mills, Inc., 192 USPQ 653
 (TTAB 1976) (law of any jurisdiction, when a copy thereof is submitted under
 notice of reliance--yes); Plus Products v. Sterling Food Co., 188 USPQ 586
 (TTAB 1975) (food supplements and fortifiers are commonly used in producing
 bakery products--yes); and Bristol-Myers Co. v. Texize Chemicals, Inc., 168
 USPQ 670 (TTAB 1971) (operations of opposer and applicant--no).

 712.02 When Discretionary

 The Board, in its discretion, may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to
 reasonable dispute, as defined in FRE 201(b), whether or not it is requested to
 do so. See FRE 201(c). See also United States National Bank of Oregon v.
 Midwest Savings and Loan Ass'n, 194 USPQ 232 (TTAB 1977), and Litton
 Business Systems, Inc. v. J. G. Furniture Co., 190 USPQ 431 (TTAB 1976).

 712.03 When Mandatory

 The Board will take judicial notice of a fact not subject to reasonable dispute, as
 defined in FRE 201(b), if a party (1) requests that the Board do so, and (2)
 supplies the necessary information. See FRE 201(d). See also United States
 National Bank of Oregon v. Midwest Savings and Loan Ass'n, 194 USPQ 232
 (TTAB 1977), and Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. J. G. Furniture Co., 190
 USPQ 431 (TTAB 1976). The request should be made during the requesting
 party's testimony period, by notice of reliance accompanied by the necessary
 information. See Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. J. G. Furniture Co., supra.
 See also Wright Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769 (TTAB
 1985), and Sprague Electric Co. v. Electrical Utilities Co., 209 USPQ 88
 (TTAB 1980).

 712.04 Opportunity to be Heard

 A party to a proceeding before the Board is entitled, upon timely request, "to an
 opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor
 of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be
 made after judicial notice has been taken." See FRE 201(e). See also Litton
 Business Systems, Inc. v. J. G. Furniture Co., 190 USPQ 431 (TTAB 1976).
 This does not mean, however, that when judicial notice is taken without prior
 notification, a party is automatically entitled to a hearing upon request, even if it
 makes no offer to show that the taking of judicial notice was improper. See In
 re Sarkli, Ltd., 721 F.2d 353, 220 USPQ 111 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Tuxedo
 Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ
 986, 988 (CCPA 1981).

 712.05 Time of Taking Notice

 Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of a Board proceeding, even at the
 time of decision on appeal from the Board's decision therein. See, for example,
 FRE 201(f); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design Inc., 846 F.2d 727,
 6 USPQ2d 1719 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Amalgamated Bank of New York v.
 Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank, 842 F.2d 1270, 6 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir.
 1988); American Security Bank v. American Security and Trust Co., 571 F.2d
 564, 197 USPQ 65 (CCPA 1978); Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp.,
 558 F.2d 1019, 194 USPQ 419 (CCPA 1977); and Food Specialty Co. v. Kal
 Kan Foods, Inc., 487 F.2d 1389, 180 USPQ 136 (CCPA 1973).

 713 Oral Depositions

 713.01 In General

 A testimony deposition is a device used by a party to a Board inter partes
 proceeding to present evidence in support of its case. During a party's
 testimony period, testimony depositions are taken, by or on behalf of the party,
 of the party himself or herself (if the party is an individual), or of an official or
 employee of the party, or of some other witness testifying (either willingly or
 under subpoena) in behalf of the party. See TBMP 404.02, and authorities
 cited therein.

 Testimony depositions are the means by which a party may introduce into the
 record not only the testimony of its witnesses, but also those documents and
 other exhibits which may not be made of record by notice of reliance. See
 TBMP 703 and 707-711, describing types of evidence admissible by notice of
 reliance. However, only evidence admissible under the applicable rules of
 evidence may properly be adduced during a testimony deposition; inadmissibility
 is a valid ground for objection. See 37 CFR 2.122(a) and 2.123(k), and
 TBMP 718.03.

 The Board does not preside at the taking of testimony. Rather, testimony is
 taken out of the presence of the Board, upon oral examination or written
 questions, and the written transcripts thereof, together with any exhibits thereto,
 are then submitted to the Board. See TBMP 702. See also TBMP 502.01.

 For a comparison of testimony depositions and discovery depositions, see TBMP
 404.02.

 713.02 Form of Testimony

 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be
 taken by depositions upon oral examination as provided by this section or by
 depositions upon written questions as provided by 2.124. If a party serves
 notice of the taking of a testimonial deposition upon written questions of a
 witness who is, or will be at the time of the deposition, present within the
 United States or any territory which is under the control and jurisdiction of the
 United States, any adverse party may, within fifteen days from the date of
 service of the notice, file a motion with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,
 for good cause, for an order that the deposition be taken by oral examination.

 (2) A testimonial deposition taken in a foreign country shall be taken by
 deposition upon written questions as provided by 2.124, unless the Board, upon
 motion for good cause, orders that the deposition be taken by oral examination,
 or the parties so stipulate.

 (b) Stipulations. If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken
 before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice,
 and in any manner, and when so taken may be used like other depositions. By
 agreement of the parties, the testimony of any witness or witnesses of any party,
 may be submitted in the form of an affidavit by such witness or witnesses. The
 parties may stipulate what a particular witness would testify to if called, or the
 facts in the case of any party may be stipulated.

 Ordinarily, the testimony of a witness may be taken either upon oral
 examination pursuant to 37 CFR 2.123, or by deposition upon written
 questions pursuant to 37 CFR 2.124. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1). For
 information concerning depositions upon written questions, see TBMP 714.

 However, if a party serves notice of the taking of a testimony deposition upon
 written questions of a witness who is, or will be at the time of the deposition,
 present within the United States (or any territory which is under the control and
 jurisdiction of the United States), any adverse party may, within 15 days from
 the date of service of the notice (20 days if service of the notice was by first-
 class mail, "Express Mail," or overnight courier--see 37 CFR 2.119(c)), file a
 motion with the Board, for good cause, for an order that the deposition be taken
 by oral examination. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1). See also Century 21 Real
 Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 15 USPQ2d 1079 (TTAB 1990),
 corrected, 19 USPQ2d 1479 (TTAB 1990); Feed Flavors Inc. v. Kemin
 Industries, Inc., 209 USPQ 589 (TTAB 1980); Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.
 Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); and TBMP 532.

 In addition, a testimony deposition taken in a foreign country must be taken by
 deposition upon written questions, unless the Board, upon motion for good
 cause, orders that the deposition be taken by oral examination, or the parties so
 stipulate. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(2). See also TBMP 520. Cf. 37 CFR
 2.120(c)(1); TBMP 404.03(c)(1); and Orion Group Inc. v. Orion Insurance
 Co. P.L.C., 12 USPQ2d 1923 (TTAB 1989).

 By agreement of the parties, the testimony of any witness or witnesses of any
 party may be submitted in the form of an affidavit by such witness or witnesses.
 See 37 CFR 2.123(b). See also Hilson Research Inc. v. Society for Human
 Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423 (TTAB 1993); McDonald's Corp. v.
 McKinley, 13 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 1989); Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Life
 Care Services Corp., 227 USPQ 389 (TTAB 1985); Oxy Metal Industries Corp.
 v. Transene Co., 196 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1977); and National Distillers and
 Chemical Corp. v. Industrial Condenser Corp., 184 USPQ 757 (TTAB 1974).
 The parties may also stipulate the facts in the case of any party, or what a
 particular witness would testify to if called, or that a party may use a discovery
 deposition as testimony. See 37 CFR 2.123(b). See also Health-Tex Inc. v.
 Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990), and Oxy Metal
 Industries Corp. v. Transene Co., 196 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1977).

 713.03 Time for Taking Testimony

 A party which desires to take testimony may do so only during its assigned
 testimony period, except by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or,
 upon motion, by order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1). See also TBMP
 701 and authorities cited therein.

 For information concerning the assignment of testimony periods, and the
 rescheduling, extension, and reopening thereof, see TBMP 509 and 701.

 713.04 Time and Place of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be
 taken by depositions upon oral examination as provided by this section or by
 depositions upon written questions as provided by 2.124. If a party serves
 notice of the taking of a testimonial deposition upon written questions of a
 witness who is, or will be at the time of the deposition, present within the
 United States or any territory which is under the control and jurisdiction of the
 United States, any adverse party may, within fifteen days from the date of
 service of the notice, file a motion with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,
 for good cause, for an order that the deposition be taken by oral examination.

 (2) A testimonial deposition taken in a foreign country shall be taken by
 deposition upon written questions as provided by 2.124, unless the Board, upon
 motion for good cause, orders that the deposition be taken by oral examination,
 or the parties so stipulate.

 * * *

 (c) Notice of examination of witnesses. Before the depositions of witnesses
 shall be taken by a party, due notice in writing shall be given to the opposing
 party or parties, as provided in 2.119(b), of the time when and place where the
 depositions will be taken, of the cause or matter in which they are to be used,
 and the name and address of each witness to be examined; if the name of a
 witness is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the witness or
 the particular class or group to which the witness belongs, together with a
 satisfactory explanation, may be given instead. Depositions may be noticed for
 any reasonable time and place in the United States. A deposition may not be
 noticed for a place in a foreign country except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)
 of this section. No party shall take depositions in more than one place at the
 same time, nor so nearly at the same time that reasonable opportunity for travel
 from one place of examination to the other is not available.

 A testimony deposition may be noticed for any reasonable time during the
 deposing party's testimony period. See 37 CFR 2.123(c). A testimony
 deposition may not be taken outside the deposing party's testimony period
 except by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or, upon motion, by
 order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1). See also TBMP 701 and
 authorities cited therein. Cf. Of Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel Chartered,
 21 USPQ2d 1555 (TTAB 1991) (where opposer's testimony deposition was
 taken two days prior to the opening of opposer's testimony period, and applicant
 first raised an untimeliness objection in its brief on the case, objection held
 waived, since the premature taking of the deposition could have been corrected
 upon seasonable objection).

 A testimony deposition to be taken in the United States may be noticed for any
 reasonable place. See 37 CFR 2.123(c).

 A deposition may not be noticed for a place in a foreign country, unless the
 deposition is to be taken upon written questions as provided by 37 CFR 2.124,
 or unless the Board, upon motion for good cause, orders, or the parties stipulate,
 that the deposition be taken by oral examination. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(2)
 and 2.123(c). See also TBMP 713.02.

 A party may not take depositions in more than one place at the same time, nor
 so nearly at the same time that reasonable opportunity for travel from one place
 of examination to the other is not available. See 37 CFR 2.123(c).

 If the parties so stipulate in writing, a deposition may be taken before any
 person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice, and in any
 manner, and when so taken may be used like any other deposition. See 37 CFR
 2.123(b).

 713.05 Notice of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.123(c) Notice of examination of witnesses. Before the depositions
 of witnesses shall be taken by a party, due notice in writing shall be given to
 the opposing party or parties, as provided in 2.119(b), of the time when and
 place where the depositions will be taken, of the cause or matter in which they
 are to be used, and the name and address of each witness to be examined; if the
 name of a witness is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the
 witness or the particular class or group to which the witness belongs, together
 with a satisfactory explanation, may be given instead. Depositions may be
 noticed for any reasonable time and place in the United States. A deposition
 may not be noticed for a place in a foreign country except as provided in
 paragraph (a)(2) of this section. No party shall take depositions in more than
 one place at the same time, nor so nearly at the same time that reasonable
 opportunity for travel from one place of examination to the other is not
 available.

 Before the oral depositions of witnesses may be taken by a party, the party must
 give due (i.e., reasonable) notice in writing to every adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.123(c). See also Jean Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1072 (TTAB
 1990); and Hamilton Burr Publishing Co. v. E. W. Communications, Inc., 216
 USPQ 802 (TTAB 1982). Cf. TBMP 404.04.

 The notice must specify the time and place the depositions will be taken, the
 cause or matter in which they are to be used, and the name and address of each
 witness to be examined. If the name of a witness is not known, the notice must
 include a general description sufficient to identify the witness or the particular
 class or group to which the witness belongs, together with a satisfactory
 explanation. See 37 CFR 2.123(c). See also Steiger Tractor, Inc. v. Steiner
 Corp., 221 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984), different results reached on reh'g, 3
 USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984); O. M. Scott & Sons Co. v. Ferry-Morse Seed Co.,
 190 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1976); and Allstate Life Insurance Co. v. Cuna
 International, Inc., 169 USPQ 313 (TTAB 1971), aff'd without opinion, 487
 F.2d 1407, 180 USPQ 48 (CCPA 1973). Cf. TBMP 404.04.

 If the parties so stipulate in writing, a deposition may be taken before any
 person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice, and in any
 manner, and when so taken may be used like any other deposition. See 37 CFR
 2.123(b).

 Ordinarily, a notice of oral deposition need not be filed with the Board, except
 as part of the completed deposition. See Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE
 TTAB: Whether and When to File Papers During Trademark Proceedings, 67
 Trademark Rep. 175 (1977), and 37 CFR 2.123(f). However, if a certified
 copy of the notice of deposition is, for some reason, required for use before a
 Federal district court, the notice of deposition must be filed with the Board for
 purposes of certification. See TBMP 123 and 713.06(b).

 For information concerning the raising of an objection to a testimony deposition
 on the ground of improper or inadequate notice, see 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3) and
 TBMP 534.01.

 713.06 Securing Attendance of Unwilling Witness

 713.06(a) In General

 Normally, during a party's testimony period, testimony depositions are taken, by
 or on behalf of the party, of the party himself or herself (if the party is an
 individual), or of an official or employee of the party, or of some other witness
 who is willing to appear voluntarily to testify on behalf of the party. These
 testimony depositions may be taken, at least in the United States, on notice
 alone.

 However, where a party wishes to take the testimony of an adverse party or
 nonparty, or an official or employee of an adverse party or nonparty, and the
 proposed witness is not willing to appear voluntarily to testify, the deposition
 may not be taken on notice alone. Rather, the party which wishes to take the
 deposition must take steps, discussed below, to compel the attendance of the
 witness. If the witness resides in a foreign country, the party may not be able to
 take the deposition. See Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d
 1409 (TTAB 1990); Consolidated Foods Corp. v. Ferro Corp., 189 USPQ 582
 (TTAB 1976); Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice, Adversary Proceedings Before
 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75 Trademark Rep. 323, 396-397
 (1985); Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Compelling the Attendance
 of a Witness in Proceedings Before the Board, 75 Trademark Rep. 296 (1985);
 and TBMP 713.06(b), 713.06(c), and 713.07. See also Stockpot, Inc. v. Stock
 Pot Restaurant, Inc., 220 USPQ 52 (TTAB 1983), aff'd, Stock Pot Restaurant,
 Inc. v. Stockpot, Inc., 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 713.06(b) Unwilling Witness Residing in United States

 If a party wishes to take the trial testimony of an adverse party or nonparty (or
 an official or employee of an adverse party or nonparty) residing in the United
 States, and the proposed witness is not willing to appear voluntarily to testify,
 the party wishing to take the testimony must secure the attendance of the
 witness by subpoena. See Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18
 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990); Consolidated Foods Corp. v. Ferro Corp., 189
 USPQ 582 (TTAB 1976); Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice, Adversary
 Proceedings Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75 Trademark Rep.
 323, 396-397 (1985); and Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE TTAB:
 Compelling the Attendance of a Witness in Proceedings Before the Board, 75
 Trademark Rep. 296 (1985). Cf. TBMP 404.03(b)(2).

 The subpoena must be issued, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 24 and FRCP 45, from
 the United States district court in the Federal judicial district where the witness
 resides or is regularly employed. If, for any reason, a certified copy of the
 notice of deposition is required in connection with the subpoena, such as for
 purposes of a motion to quash the subpoena, or a motion to enforce the
 subpoena, the interested party should contact the clerk of the court to determine
 whether the court will require a formal certified copy (i.e., a certified copy
 bearing a PTO seal) of the notice, or will accept a Board verification letter (see
 TBMP 123.03). A certified copy of a notice of deposition is a copy prepared
 by the party noticing the deposition, and certified by the PTO as being a true
 copy of the notice of deposition filed in the proceeding before the Board. A
 verified copy of a notice of deposition is a copy prepared by the party noticing
 the deposition, and verified by the Board as being a true copy of the notice of
 deposition filed in the Board proceeding. A copy of a notice of deposition
 cannot be certified by the PTO, or verified by the Board, unless it has been filed
 in the Board proceeding. See Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE TTAB:
 Compelling the Attendance of a Witness in Proceedings Before the Board, 75
 Trademark Rep. 296 (1985), and TBMP 123. For further information relating
 to PTO certification or Board verification of a notice of deposition, see TBMP
 123.

 If a person named in a subpoena compelling attendance at a testimony
 deposition fails to attend the deposition, or refuses to answer a question
 propounded at the deposition, the deposing party must seek enforcement from
 the United States district court which issued the subpoena. Similarly, any
 request to quash a subpoena must be directed to the United States district court
 which issued the subpoena. The Board has no jurisdiction over depositions by
 subpoena. See, for example, Luehrmann v. Kwik Kopy Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1303
 (TTAB 1987); In re Johnson & Johnson, 59 F.R.D. 174, 178 USPQ 201 (D.Del.
 1973); PRD Electronics Inc. v. Pacific Roller Die Co., 169 USPQ 318 (TTAB
 1971); Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice, Adversary Proceedings Before the
 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75 Trademark Rep. 323, 396-397 (1985);
 and Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Compelling the Attendance of a
 Witness in Proceedings Before the Board, 75 Trademark Rep. 296 (1985).

 713.06(c) Unwilling Witness Residing in Foreign Country

 There is no certain procedure for obtaining, in a Board inter partes proceeding,
 the trial testimony deposition of a witness who resides in a foreign country, is
 an adverse party or a nonparty (or an official or employee of an adverse party or
 nonparty), and is not willing to appear voluntarily to testify. However, the
 deposing party may be able to obtain the testimony deposition of such a witness
 through the letter rogatory procedure or the Hague Convention letter of request
 procedure. See Rany L. Simms, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Compelling the
 Attendance of a Witness in Proceedings Before the Board, 75 Trademark Rep.
 296 (1985). For information concerning these procedures, see TBMP
 404.03(c)(2).

 713.07 Persons Before Whom Depositions May be Taken

 37 CFR 2.123(d) Persons before whom depositions may be taken.
 Depositions may be taken before persons designated by Rule 28 of the Federal
 Rules of Civil Procedure.

 FRCP 28. Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
 (a) Within the United States. Within the United States or within a territory or
 insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, depositions
 shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of
 the United States or of the place where the examination is held, or before a
 person appointed by the court in which the action is pending. A person so
 appointed has power to administer oaths and take testimony. The term officer
 as used in Rules 30, 31 and 32 includes a person appointed by the court or
 designated by the parties under Rule 29.

 (b) In Foreign Countries. Depositions may be taken in a foreign country (1)
 pursuant to any applicable treaty or convention, or (2) pursuant to a letter of
 request (whether or not captioned a letter rogatory), or (3) on notice before a
 person authorized to administer oaths in the place where the examination is
 held, either by the law thereof or by the law of the United States, or (4) before
 a person commissioned by the court, and a person so commissioned shall have
 the power by virtue of the commission to administer any necessary oath and
 take testimony. A commission or a letter of request shall be issued on
 application and notice and on terms that are just and appropriate. It is not
 requisite to the issuance of a commission or a letter of request that the taking of
 the deposition in any other manner is impracticable or inconvenient; and both a
 commission and a letter of request may be issued in proper cases. A notice of
 commission may designate the person before whom the deposition is to be taken
 either by name or descriptive title. A letter of request may be addressed "To
 the Appropriate Authority in [here name the country]." When a letter of request
 or any other device is used pursuant to any applicable treaty or convention, it
 shall be captioned in the form prescribed by that treaty or convention.
 Evidence obtained in response to a letter of request need not be excluded merely
 because it is not a verbatim transcript, because the testimony was not taken
 under oath, or because of any similar departure from the requirements for
 depositions taken within the United States under these rules.

 (c) Disqualification for Interest. No deposition shall be taken before a person
 who is a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, or is
 a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or is financially interested in
 the action.

 Depositions in Board inter partes proceedings may be taken before the persons
 described in FRCP 28. See 37 CFR 2.123(d).

 Thus, in the United States (or in any territory or insular possession subject to
 the jurisdiction of the United States) a Board proceeding testimony deposition
 "shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of
 the United States or of the place where the deposition is held, or before a person
 appointed by the court in which the action is pending." See FRCP 28(a). As a
 practical matter, Board proceeding depositions taken in the United States are
 usually taken before a court reporter who is authorized to administer oaths in the
 jurisdiction where the deposition is taken.

 In a foreign country, a Board proceeding testimony deposition may be taken
 pursuant to FRCP 28(b). This means, for example, that a Board proceeding
 testimony deposition taken of a willing witness in a foreign country usually may
 be taken on notice before a United States consular official, or before anyone
 authorized by the law of the foreign country to administer oaths therein. Some
 countries, however, may prohibit the taking of testimony within their boundaries
 for use in any other country, including the United States, even though the
 witness is willing; or may permit the taking of testimony only if certain
 procedures are followed. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
 Procedure: Civil 2083 (1970). A party which wishes to take a testimony
 deposition in a foreign country should first consult with local counsel in the
 foreign country, and/or with the Office of Citizens Consular Services,
 Department of State, in order to determine whether the taking of the deposition
 will be permitted by the foreign country, and, if so, what procedure must be
 followed. The testimony of an unwilling adverse party or nonparty witness may
 be taken in a foreign country, if at all, only by the letter rogatory procedure, or
 by the letter of request procedure provided under the Hague Convention on the
 Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, or by any other
 procedure provided for the purpose by any future treaty into which the United
 States may enter. Cf. TBMP 404.03(c)(2) and 713.06(c).

 If the parties so stipulate in writing (and if permitted by the laws of the foreign
 country, in the case of a deposition to be taken in a foreign country), a
 deposition may be taken before any person authorized to administer oaths, at
 any place, upon any notice, and in any manner, and when so taken may be used
 like any other deposition. See 37 CFR 2.123(b).

 713.08 Examination of Witnesses

 37 CFR 2.123(e) Examination of witnesses. (1) Each witness before testifying
 shall be duly sworn according to law by the officer before whom his deposition
 is to be taken.

 (2) The deposition shall be taken in answer to questions, with the questions and
 answers recorded in their regular order by the officer, or by some other person
 (who shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil
 Procedure) in the presence of the officer except when the officer's presence is
 waived on the record by agreement of the parties. The testimony shall be taken
 stenographically and transcribed, unless the parties present agree otherwise. In
 the absence of all opposition parties and their attorneys or other authorized
 representatives, depositions may be taken in longhand, typewriting, or
 stenographically. Exhibits which are marked and identified at the deposition
 will be deemed to have been offered into evidence, without any formal offer
 thereof, unless the intention of the party marking the exhibits is clearly to the
 contrary.

 (3) Every adverse party shall have full opportunity to cross-examine each
 witness. If the notice of examination of witnesses which is served pursuant to
 paragraph (c) of this section is improper or inadequate with respect to any
 witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest while
 reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence.
 Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, if he wishes to
 preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record, which
 motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. A motion
 to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate notice of
 examination must request the exclusion of the entire testimony of that witness
 and not only a part of that testimony.

 (4) All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of
 the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the
 evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to
 the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Evidence
 objected to shall be taken subject to the objections.

 FRCP 30(b)(7) The parties may stipulate in writing or the court may upon
 motion order that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote electronic
 means. For the purposes of this rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(1), and 37(b)(1) a
 deposition taken by such means is taken in the district and at the place where
 the deponent is to answer questions.

 Before testifying, a witness whose testimony deposition is being taken for use in
 a Board inter partes proceeding must be duly sworn, according to law, by the
 officer before whom the deposition is to be taken. See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(1).
 See also TBMP 713.07.

 The deposition is taken in answer to questions, and the questions and answers
 are recorded in order by the officer, or by some other person (who is subject to
 the provisions of FRCP 28) in the presence of the officer, except when the
 officer's presence is waived on the record by agreement of the parties. The
 testimony is taken stenographically and transcribed, unless the parties present
 agree otherwise. If no adverse party, or its attorney or other authorized
 representative, attends the deposition, the testimony may be taken in longhand,
 typewriting, or stenographically. See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(2).

 The Board does not accept videotape depositions. A deposition must be
 submitted to the Board in written form. However, a videotape of a commercial,
 demonstration, etc., may be submitted as an exhibit to the testimony of a
 witness.

 Upon stipulation of the parties, or upon motion granted by the Board, a
 deposition may be taken or attended by telephone. See FRCP 30(b)(7), and
 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Healthcare Personnel Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1552 (TTAB
 1991). A deposition taken by telephone is taken in the district and at the place
 where the witness is to answer the questions propounded to him or her.

 Exhibits which are marked and identified at the deposition will be deemed to
 have been offered in evidence, even if no formal offer thereof is made, unless
 the intention of the party marking the exhibits is clearly to the contrary. See 37
 CFR 2.123(e)(2). See also Tiffany & Co. v. Classic Motor Carriages Inc., 10
 USPQ2d 1835 (TTAB 1989) (decided just prior to adoption of the present rule).

 If exhibits are large, bulky, valuable, or breakable, the Board strongly prefers
 that they be photographed (or, in the case of documents, photocopied), and that
 the photographs (or photocopies) be filed with the Board in lieu of the originals.
 The originals should, of course, be shown to every adverse party. If an original
 exhibit does not photograph (or photocopy) well, and one of the parties intends
 to request that an oral hearing be held on the case, the parties may agree that
 the original be carried to the oral hearing and given to the Board at that time.
 See Gary D. Krugman, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Testimony Depositions, 70
 Trademark Rep. 353 (1980). The Board cannot be responsible for the
 safekeeping and/or safe return of original exhibits which are large, bulky,
 valuable, or breakable.

 Every adverse party must be given a full opportunity to cross-examine the
 witness. If the notice of deposition served by a party is improper or inadequate
 with respect to the witness, an adverse party may cross-examine the witness
 under protest while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony
 in evidence. See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3). For information concerning the raising
 of an objection to a testimony deposition on the ground of improper or
 inadequate notice, see 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3), and TBMP 534.02 and
 718.03(b).

 All objections made at the time of the taking of a testimony deposition as to the
 qualifications of the officer taking the deposition, the manner of taking the
 deposition, the evidence presented, the conduct of any party, or any other
 objection to the proceedings, are noted by the officer upon the deposition.
 Evidence objected to is taken subject to the objections. See 37 CFR
 2.123(e)(4). See also TBMP 718.03.

 Questions to which an objection is made ordinarily should be answered subject
 to the objection, but a witness may properly refuse to answer a question asking
 for information which is, for example, privileged or confidential. See TBMP
 404.02, and authorities cited therein. For information concerning the
 propounding party's recourse if a witness not only objects to, but also refuses to
 answer, a particular question, see TBMP 404.02 and 718.03(d), and
 authorities cited therein.

 For further information concerning the raising of objections to testimony
 depositions, see TBMP 534 and 718.03, and authorities cited therein.

 If the parties so stipulate in writing, a deposition may be taken before any
 person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice, and in any
 manner, and when so taken may be used like any other deposition. See 37 CFR
 2.123(b).

 713.09 Form of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.123(g) Form of deposition. (1) The pages of each deposition must
 be numbered consecutively, and the name of the witness plainly and
 conspicuously written at the top of each page. The deposition may be written
 on legal-size or letter-size paper, with a wide margin on the left hand side of
 the page, and with the writing on one side only of the sheet. The questions
 propounded to each witness must be consecutively numbered unless paper with
 numbered lines is used, and each question must be followed by its answer.

 (2) Exhibits must be numbered or lettered consecutively and each must be
 marked with the number and title of the case and the name of the party offering
 the exhibit. Entry and consideration may be refused to improperly marked
 exhibits.

 (3) Each deposition must contain an index of the names of the witnesses, giving
 the pages where their examination and cross-examination begin, and an index of
 the exhibits, briefly describing their nature and giving the pages at which they
 are introduced and offered in evidence.

 37 CFR 2.125(d) Each transcript shall comply with 2.123(g) with respect to
 arrangement, indexing and form.

 A deposition must be submitted to the Board in written form. The Board does
 not accept videotape depositions.

 The particular requirements for the form of a written deposition are specified in
 37 CFR 2.123(g).

 Although 37 CFR 2.123(g)(1) provides, inter alia, that a deposition may be
 written on either legal-size or letter-size paper, letter-size is recommended,
 because the case may ultimately be appealed to a Federal court which requires
 letter-size paper.

 Exhibits must be marked as specified in 37 CFR 2.123(g)(2). The Board, in its
 discretion, may refuse to enter and consider improperly marked exhibits. See 37
 CFR 2.123(g)(2); Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845 (TTAB
 1984); and G. Douglas Hohein, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Potpourri, 71
 Trademark Rep. 163 (1981).

 For information concerning deposition objections based on errors or
 irregularities in form, see TBMP 718.03(c).

 713.10 Signature of Deposition by Witness

 37 CFR 2.123(e)(5) When the deposition has been transcribed, the deposition
 shall be carefully read over by the witness or by the officer to him, and shall
 then be signed by the witness in the presence of any officer authorized to
 administer oaths unless the reading and the signature be waived on the record
 by agreement of all parties.

 The signature of a deposition by the witness is governed by 37 CFR
 2.123(e)(5). The deposition does not have to be signed in the presence of the
 officer before whom the deposition was taken. It may be signed in the presence
 of any officer authorized to administer oaths.

 Reading and signature cannot be waived by mere agreement of the witness; the
 agreement of every party is required. See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(5), and Gary D.
 Krugman, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Testimony Depositions, 70 Trademark Rep.
 353 (1980).

 713.11 Certification and Filing of Deposition by Officer

 37 CFR 2.123(f) Certification and filing by officer. The officer shall annex to
 the deposition his certificate showing:
 (1) Due administration of the oath by the officer to
 the witness before the commencement of his deposition;
 (2) The name of the person by whom the deposition was
 taken down, and whether, if not taken down by the officer, it was taken down in
 his presence;
 (3) The presence or absence of the adverse party;
 (4) The place, day, and hour of commencing and taking
 the deposition;
 (5) The fact that the officer was not disqualified as
 specified in Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 If any of the foregoing requirements are waived, the certificate shall so state.
 The officer shall sign the certificate and affix thereto his seal of office, if he has
 such a seal. Unless waived on the record by an agreement, he shall then,
 without delay, securely seal in an envelope all the evidence, notices, and paper
 exhibits, inscribe upon the envelope a certificate giving the number and title of
 the case, the name of each witness, and the date of sealing, address the
 package, and forward the same to the Commissioner of Patents and
 Trademarks. If the weight or bulk of an exhibit shall exclude it from the
 envelope, it shall, unless waived on the record by agreement of all parties, be
 authenticated by the officer and transmitted in a separate package marked and
 addressed as provided in this section.

 37 CFR 2.125 Filing and service of testimony.
 (a) One copy of the transcript of testimony taken in accordance with 2.123,
 together with copies of documentary exhibits and duplicates or photographs of
 physical exhibits, shall be served on each adverse party within thirty days after
 completion of the taking of that testimony. If the transcript with exhibits is not
 served on each adverse party within thirty days or within an extension of time
 for the purpose, any adverse party which was not served may have remedy by
 way of a motion to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to reset such adverse
 party's testimony and/or briefing periods, as may be appropriate. If the
 deposing party fails to serve a copy of the transcript with exhibits on an adverse
 party after having been ordered to do so by the Board, the Board, in its
 discretion, may strike the deposition, or enter judgment as by default against the
 deposing party, or take any such other action as may be deemed appropriate.

 * * *

 (c) One certified transcript and exhibits shall be filed promptly with the
 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Notice of such filing shall be served on
 each adverse party and a copy of each notice shall be filed with the Board.

 The certification and filing of a deposition are governed by 37 CFR 2.123(f).
 The certified transcript, with exhibits, should be sent to the Board at its mailing
 address for papers not accompanied by a fee, i.e., BOX TTAB NO FEE,
 Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia
 22202-3513.

 The certified transcript and exhibits must be filed promptly with the Board. See
 37 CFR 2.125(c), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Human Performance
 Measurement, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1390 (TTAB 1991). A notice of reliance
 thereon need not (and should not) be filed. See, for example, Paramount
 Pictures Corp. v. Romulan Invasions, 7 USPQ2d 1897 (TTAB 1988), and Entex
 Industries, Inc. v. Milton Bradley Co., 213 USPQ 1116 (TTAB 1982).
 However, notice of the filing of the certified transcript, and accompanying
 exhibits, with the Board must be served on each adverse party. A copy of each
 such notice must also be filed with the Board. See 37 CFR 2.125(c). In
 addition, one copy of the deposition transcript, together with copies, duplicates,
 or photographs of the exhibits thereto, must be served on each adverse party
 within 30 days after completion of the taking of the testimony, or within an
 extension of time for the purpose. See 37 CFR 2.125(a). For information
 concerning the remedy which an adverse party may have if it is not timely
 served with a copy of the deposition and exhibits, see TBMP 713.13.

 If a party which took a deposition discovers that the officer has inadvertently
 failed to send the certified transcript, with exhibits, to the Board, the party
 should contact the officer and arrange for the immediate filing of the deposition
 with the Board. See Gary D. Krugman, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Testimony
 Depositions, 70 Trademark Rep. 353 (1980).

 If the officer, by mistake, sends the certified deposition and exhibits to the party
 which took the deposition, or its attorney or other authorized representative,
 rather than to the Board, the party, or its attorney or other authorized
 representative, should, without delay, forward them to the Board, or return them
 to the officer for immediate transmittal to the Board.

 713.12 Testimony Deposition Must be Filed

 37 CFR 2.123(h) Depositions must be filed. All depositions which are taken
 must be duly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. On refusal to file, the
 Office at its discretion will not further hear or consider the contestant with
 whom the refusal lies; and the Office may, at its discretion, receive and
 consider a copy of the withheld deposition, attested by such evidence as is
 procurable.

 All trial testimony depositions that are taken in a Board inter partes proceeding
 must be filed with the Board, and, when filed, automatically constitute part of
 the evidentiary record in the proceeding. See 37 CFR 2.123(h). See also, for
 example, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Human Performance Measurement, Inc., 23
 USPQ2d 1390 (TTAB 1991); Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Major Mud & Chemical
 Co., 221 USPQ 1191 (TTAB 1984); and An Evening at the Trotters, Inc. v. A
 Nite at the Races, Inc., 214 USPQ 737 (TTAB 1982). If a party which took a
 testimony deposition refuses to file it, the Board, in its discretion, may refuse to
 further hear or consider the party, or may receive and consider a copy of the
 withheld deposition, attested by such evidence as is procurable. See 37 CFR
 2.123(h).

 713.13 Service of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.125 Filing and service of testimony.
 (a) One copy of the transcript of testimony taken in accordance with 2.123,
 together with copies of documentary exhibits and duplicates or photographs of
 physical exhibits, shall be served on each adverse party within thirty days after
 completion of the taking of that testimony. If the transcript with exhibits is not
 served on each adverse party within thirty days or within an extension of time
 for the purpose, any adverse party which was not served may have remedy by
 way of a motion to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to reset such adverse
 party's testimony and/or briefing periods, as may be appropriate. If the
 deposing party fails to serve a copy of the transcript with exhibits on an adverse
 party after having been ordered to do so by the Board, the Board, in its
 discretion, may strike the deposition, or enter judgment as by default against the
 deposing party, or take any such other action as may be deemed appropriate.

 One copy of the transcript of trial testimony, together with copies of
 documentary exhibits and duplicates or photographs of physical exhibits, must
 be served on each adverse party within 30 days after completion of the taking of
 the testimony, or within an extension of time for the purpose. See 37 CFR
 2.125(a).

 The requirement that a copy of the transcript, with exhibits, be served upon
 every adverse party within the time specified in 37 CFR 2.125(a) is intended to
 ensure that each adverse party will have the testimony before it has to offer its
 own evidence, or, if the testimony in question is rebuttal testimony, to ensure
 that each adverse party will have the testimony before it has to prepare its brief
 on the case. See Techex, Ltd. v. Dvorkovitz, 220 USPQ 81 (TTAB 1983), and
 S. S. Kresge Co. v. J-Mart Industries, Inc., 178 USPQ 124 (TTAB 1973). If a
 copy of the transcript, with exhibits, is not served on each adverse party within
 that time, any adverse party which was not served may have remedy by way of
 a motion to the Board to reset its testimony and/or briefing periods, as may be
 appropriate. See 37 CFR 2.125(a), and Techex, Ltd. v. Dvorkovitz, supra.

 If a party which took a deposition fails to serve a copy of the transcript, with
 exhibits, on an adverse party after having been ordered to do so by the Board,
 the Board, in its discretion, may take any of the actions mentioned in 37 CFR
 2.125(a).

 713.14 Correction of Errors in Deposition

 37 CFR 2.125(b) The party who takes testimony is responsible for having all
 typographical errors in the transcript and all errors of arrangement, indexing
 and form of the transcript corrected, on notice to each adverse party, prior to
 the filing of one certified transcript with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
 The party who takes testimony is responsible for serving on each adverse party
 one copy of the corrected transcript or, if reasonably feasible, corrected pages
 to be inserted into the transcript previously served.

 A party which takes testimony is responsible for having any errors in the
 transcript corrected, on notice to each adverse party, prior to the filing of the
 certified transcript with the Board. See 37 CFR 2.125(b), and Hewlett-Packard
 Co. v. Human Performance Measurement, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1390 (TTAB 1991).

 If the witness, upon reading the transcript, discovers that typographical or
 editorial corrections need to be made, or that other corrections are necessary to
 make the transcript an accurate record of what the witness actually said during
 the taking of his or her testimony, the witness should make a list of all such
 corrections and forward the list to the officer before whom the deposition was
 taken. The officer, in turn, should correct the transcript by redoing the involved
 pages. Alternatively, if there are not many corrections to be made, the witness
 may correct the transcript by writing each correction above the original text
 which it corrects, and initialing the correction. Although parties sometimes
 attempt to correct errors in transcripts by simply inserting a list of corrections at
 the end of the transcript, this is not an effective method of correction. The
 Board does not enter corrections for litigants, and the list of corrections is likely
 to be overlooked and/or disregarded.

 If corrections are necessary, the party which took the deposition must serve on
 every adverse party a copy of the corrected transcript or, if reasonably feasible,
 corrected pages to be inserted into the transcript previously served. See 37 CFR
 2.125(b). See also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Human Performance Measurement,
 Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1390 (TTAB 1991).

 If errors are discovered after the transcript has been filed with the Board, a list
 of corrections, signed by the witness, should be submitted to the Board (and
 served upon every adverse party), together with a request for leave to correct the
 errors. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate that specified corrections may be
 made. If the request is granted, or if the parties so stipulate, the party which
 took the deposition should send a representative to the offices of the Board to
 make the listed corrections by writing them above the original text in the
 transcript. See: Gary D. Krugman, TIPS FROM THE TTAB: Testimony
 Depositions, 70 Trademark Rep. 353 (1980).

 While typographical and editorial corrections may be made in a transcript, as
 well as other corrections necessary to make the transcript an accurate record of
 what the witness said during the taking of his or her testimony, material changes
 in the text are not permitted--the transcript may not be altered to change the
 testimony of the witness after the fact. See Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields
 Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321 (TTAB 1992); Cadence Industries Corp. v. Kerr,
 225 USPQ 331 (TTAB 1985); Entex Industries, Inc. v. Milton Bradley Co., 213
 USPQ 1116 (TTAB 1982).

 713.15 Objections to Testimony Depositions

 For information concerning objections to testimony depositions, see TBMP
 718.03. See also TBMP 534.

 713.16 Confidential or Trade Secret Material

 37 CFR 2.125(e) Upon motion by any party, for good cause, the Trademark
 Trial and Appeal Board may order that any part of a deposition transcript or
 any exhibits that directly disclose any trade secret or other confidential
 research, development, or commercial information may be filed under seal and
 kept confidential under the provisions of 2.27(e). If any party or any attorney
 or agent of a party fails to comply with an order made under this paragraph,
 the Board may impose any of the sanctions authorized by 2.120(g).

 Cf. 37 CFR 2.120(f), and TBMP 120.03, 416, 526, and 527.01.

 714 Depositions Upon Written Questions

 714.01 When Available

 714.01(a) For Testimony

 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1) The testimony of witnesses in inter partes cases may be
 taken by depositions upon oral examination as provided by this section or by
 depositions upon written questions as provided by 2.124. If a party serves
 notice of the taking of a testimonial deposition upon written questions of a
 witness who is, or will be at the time of the deposition, present within the
 United States or any territory which is under the control and jurisdiction of the
 United States, any adverse party may, within fifteen days from the date of
 service of the notice, file a motion with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,
 for good cause, for an order that the deposition be taken by oral examination.

 (2) A testimonial deposition taken in a foreign country shall be taken by
 deposition upon written questions as provided by 2.124, unless the Board, upon
 motion for good cause, orders that the deposition be taken by oral examination,
 or the parties so stipulate.

 (b) Stipulations. If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken
 before any person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice,
 and in any manner, and when so taken may be used like other depositions. By
 agreement of the parties, the testimony of any witness or witnesses of any party,
 may be submitted in the form of an affidavit by such witness or witnesses. The
 parties may stipulate what a particular witness would testify to if called, or the
 facts in the case of any party may be stipulated.

 Ordinarily, the testimony of a witness may be taken either upon oral
 examination pursuant to 37 CFR 2.123, or by deposition upon written
 questions pursuant to 37 CFR 2.124. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1). For
 information concerning depositions upon oral examination, see TBMP 713.

 However, if a party serves notice of the taking of a testimony deposition upon
 written questions of a witness who is, or will be at the time of the deposition,
 present within the United States (or any territory which is under the control and
 jurisdiction of the United States), any adverse party may, within 15 days from
 the date of service of the notice (20 days if service of the notice was by first-
 class mail, "Express Mail," or overnight courier--see 37 CFR 2.119(c)), file a
 motion with the Board, for good cause, for an order that the deposition be taken
 by oral examination. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(1), and TBMP 713.02 and cases
 cited therein.

 In addition, a testimony deposition taken in a foreign country must be taken by
 deposition upon written questions, unless the Board, upon motion for good
 cause, orders that the deposition be taken by oral examination, or the parties so
 stipulate. See 37 CFR 2.123(a)(2), and TBMP 713.02 and cases cited therein.

 714.01(b) For Discovery

 37 CFR 2.120(c) Discovery deposition in foreign countries.
 (1) The discovery deposition of a natural person residing in a foreign country
 who is a party or who, at the time set for the taking of the deposition, is an
 officer, director, or managing agent of a party, or a person designated under
 Rule 30(b)(6) or Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall, if
 taken in a foreign country, be taken in the manner prescribed by 2.124 unless
 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, upon motion for good cause, orders or
 the parties stipulate, that the deposition be taken by oral examination.

 (2) Whenever a foreign party is or will be, during a time set for discovery,
 present within the United States or any territory which is under the control and
 jurisdiction of the United States, such party may be deposed by oral
 examination upon notice by the party seeking discovery. Whenever a foreign
 party has or will have, during a time set for discovery, an officer, director,
 managing agent, or other person who consents to testify on its behalf, present
 within the United States or any territory which is under the control and
 jurisdiction of the United States, such officer, director, managing agent, or other
 person who consents to testify in its behalf may be deposed by oral examination
 upon notice by the party seeking discovery. The party seeking discovery may
 have one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who
 consent to testify on behalf of the adverse party, designated under Rule 30(b)(6)
 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The deposition of a person under this
 paragraph shall be taken in the Federal judicial district where the witness
 resides or is regularly employed, or, if the witness neither resides nor is
 regularly employed in a Federal judicial district, where the witness is at the
 time of the deposition. This paragraph does not preclude the taking of a
 discovery deposition of a foreign party by any other procedure provided by
 paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

 Ordinarily, a discovery deposition may be taken either upon oral examination or
 upon written questions. See FRCP 26(a). See also TBMP 404.02.

 However, the discovery deposition of a natural person who resides in a foreign
 country, and who is a party (or who, at the time set for the taking of the
 deposition, is an officer, director, or managing agent of a party, or a person
 designated under FRCP 30(b)(6) or FRCP 31 (a) to testify on behalf of a party),
 may be taken in a foreign country only upon written questions, in the manner
 described in 37 CFR 2.124, unless the Board, upon motion for good cause,
 orders, or the parties stipulate, that the deposition be taken by oral examination.
 See 37 CFR 2.120(c)(1). See also TBMP 404.03(c)(1) and authorities cited
 therein.

 If a natural person who is a foreign party (or an officer, director, or managing
 agent of a foreign party, or some other person who consents to testify on a
 foreign party's behalf) is or will be, during a time set for discovery, present
 within the United States or any territory which is under the control and
 jurisdiction of the United States, the party, officer, director, managing agent, or
 other person may be deposed, while in the United States, by oral examination
 upon notice by the party seeking discovery. See 37 CFR 2.120(c)(2). See also
 TBMP 404.03(c)(1) and authorities cited therein. However, the Board will not
 order a natural person residing in a foreign country to come to the United States
 for the taking of his or her deposition. See TBMP 404.03(c)(1) and cases cited
 therein.

 The discovery deposition of a natural person who resides in a foreign country,
 and is not a party (or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party, or a
 person designated under FRCP 30(b)(6) or 31 (a) to testify on behalf of a party),
 but is willing to appear voluntarily to be deposed, may be taken in the same
 manner as the discovery deposition of a natural person who resides in a foreign
 country and who is a party. See TBMP 404.03(c)(2). If such a person is not
 willing to appear voluntarily to be deposed, his or her discovery deposition may
 be obtained, if at all, only through the letter rogatory procedure or the Hague
 Convention letter of request procedure. See TBMP 404.03(c)(2).

 714.02 Persons Before Whom Depositions May be Taken

 37 CFR 2.124(a) A deposition upon written questions may be taken before any
 person before whom depositions may be taken as provided by Rule 28 of the
 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 A deposition upon written questions, like a deposition upon oral examination,
 may be taken before the persons described in FRCP 28. See 37 CFR 2.124(a).
 For further information, see TBMP 713.07.

 714.03 Securing Attendance of Unwilling Witness

 For information concerning securing the attendance of an unwilling witness, see
 TBMP 404.03 (for discovery deposition) and 713.06 (for testimony deposition).

 714.04 Time for Taking Deposition

 37 CFR 2.121 Assignment of times for taking testimony.
 (a)(1) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will issue a trial order assigning
 to each party the time for taking testimony. No testimony shall be taken except
 during the times assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by the
 Board, or, upon motion, by order of the Board. Testimony periods may be
 rescheduled by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion
 granted by the Board, or by order of the Board. ...

 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1) A party desiring to take a testimonial deposition upon
 written questions shall serve notice thereof upon each adverse party within ten
 days from the opening date of the testimony period of the party who serves the
 notice. The notice shall state the name and address of the witness. A copy of
 the notice, but not copies of the questions, shall be filed with the Trademark
 Trial and Appeal Board.

 * * *

 (d)(2) ... Upon receipt of written notice that one or more testimonial depositions
 are to be taken upon written questions, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
 shall suspend or reschedule other proceedings in the matter to allow for the
 orderly completion of the depositions upon written question.

 A party which desires to take testimony may do so only during its assigned
 testimony period, except by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or,
 upon motion, by order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a)(1), and TBMP
 701 and authorities cited therein. For information concerning the assignment
 of testimony periods, and the rescheduling, extension, and reopening thereof, see
 TBMP 509 and 701.

 A party which desires to take a testimony deposition upon written questions
 must serve notice thereof upon each adverse party within 10 days from the
 opening date of the deposing party's testimony period, as originally set or as
 reset. See 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1), and Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field's
 Cookies, 17 USPQ2d 1652 (TTAB 1990).

 Upon receipt of written notice that one or more testimony depositions are to be
 taken upon written questions, the Board will suspend or reschedule other
 proceedings in the case to allow for the orderly completion of the depositions
 upon written questions. See 37 CFR 2.124(d)(2). See also Health-Tex Inc. v.
 Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990), and Marshall Field &
 Co. v. Mrs. Field's Cookies, 17 USPQ2d 1652 (TTAB 1990).

 For information concerning the time for taking a discovery deposition, see
 TBMP 404.01.

 714.05 Place of Deposition

 A testimony deposition upon written questions may be taken at any reasonable
 place. Cf. 37 CFR 2.123(c), and TBMP 713.04. An adverse party may
 attend the taking of the deposition if it so desires, not for the purpose of
 participating (its participation will have occurred previously, through its service
 of cross questions, recross questions, and objections, if any, pursuant to 37 CFR
 2.124(d)(1)), but rather merely for the purpose of observing.

 For information concerning the place where a discovery deposition upon written
 questions is taken, see TBMP 404.03(b), 404.03(c), and 404.04.

 714.06 Notice of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1) A party desiring to take a testimonial deposition upon
 written questions shall serve notice thereof upon each adverse party within ten
 days from the opening date of the testimony period of the party who serves the
 notice. The notice shall state the name and address of the witness. A copy of
 the notice, but not copies of the questions, shall be filed with the Trademark
 Trial and Appeal Board.

 * * *

 (c) Every notice given under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section shall
 be accompanied by the name or descriptive title of the officer before whom the
 deposition is to be taken.

 (d)(1) Every notice served on any adverse party under the provisions of
 paragraph (b) of this section shall be accompanied by the written questions to
 be propounded on behalf of the party who proposes to take the deposition. ...

 A party which desires to take a testimony deposition upon written questions
 must, within 10 days from the opening date of its testimony period, as originally
 set or as reset, serve notice thereof upon each adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.124(b)(1). See also Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Field's Cookies, 17
 USPQ2d 1652 (TTAB 1990).

 The notice must state the name and address of the witness; and must be
 accompanied by the name or descriptive title of the officer before whom the
 deposition is to be taken, and by the written questions to be propounded on
 behalf of the deposing party. See 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1), 2.124(c), and
 2.124(d)(1). A copy of the notice, but not of the questions, must be filed with
 the Board. See 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1).

 For information concerning the notice of deposition in the case of a discovery
 deposition upon written questions, see TBMP 404.04.

 714.07 Examination of Witness

 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1) A party desiring to take a testimonial deposition upon
 written questions shall serve notice thereof upon each adverse party within ten
 days from the opening date of the testimony period of the party who serves the
 notice. The notice shall state the name and address of the witness. A copy of
 the notice, but not copies of the questions, shall be filed with the Trademark
 Trial and Appeal Board.

 * * *

 (c) Every notice given under the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section shall
 be accompanied by the name or descriptive title of the officer before whom the
 deposition is to be taken.

 (d)(1) Every notice served on any adverse party under the provisions of
 paragraph (b) of this section shall be accompanied by the written questions to
 be propounded on behalf of the party who proposes to take the deposition.
 Within twenty days from the date of service of the notice, any adverse party may
 serve cross questions upon the party who proposes to take the deposition; any
 party who serves cross questions shall also serve every other adverse party.
 Within ten days from the date of service of the cross questions, the party who
 proposes to take the deposition may serve redirect questions on every adverse
 party. Within ten days from the date of service of the redirect questions, any
 party who served cross questions may serve recross questions upon the party
 who proposes to take the deposition; any party who serves recross questions
 shall also serve every other adverse party. Written objections to questions may
 be served on a party propounding questions; any party who objects shall serve
 a copy of the objections on every other adverse party. In response to
 objections, substitute questions may be served on the objecting party within ten
 days of the date of service of the objections; substitute questions shall be served
 on every other adverse party.

 (d)(2) Upon motion for good cause by any party, or upon its own initiative, the
 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may extend any of the time periods
 provided by paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Upon receipt of written notice
 that one or more testimonial depositions are to be taken upon written questions,
 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board shall suspend or reschedule other
 proceedings in the matter to allow for the orderly completion of the depositions
 upon written question.

 (e) Within ten days after the last date when questions, objections, or substitute
 questions may be served, the party who proposes to take the deposition shall
 mail a copy of the notice and copies of all the questions to the officer
 designated in the notice; a copy of the notice and of all the questions mailed to
 the officer shall be served on every adverse party. The officer designated in the
 notice shall take the testimony of the witness in response to the questions and
 shall record each answer immediately after the corresponding question. The
 officer shall then certify the transcript and mail the transcript and exhibits to
 the party who took the deposition.

 A party which desires to take a testimony deposition upon written questions
 must, within 10 days from the opening date of its testimony period, as originally
 set or as reset, serve notice thereof upon each adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.124(b)(1). See also TBMP 714.06.

 The notice must be accompanied by the written questions to be propounded on
 behalf of the deposing party. See 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1), 2.124(c), and
 2.124(d)(1). A copy of the notice, but not of the questions, must be filed with
 the Board. See 37 CFR 2.124(b)(1).

 Within 20 days from the date of service of the notice (25 days, if service of the
 notice and accompanying questions was made by first-class mail, "Express
 Mail," or overnight courier--see: 37 CFR 2.119(c)), any adverse party may
 serve cross questions upon the deposing party. A party which serves cross
 questions upon the deposing party must also serve copies thereof upon every
 other adverse party. Within 10 days from the date of service of the cross
 questions (15 days, if service of the cross questions was made by first-class
 mail, "Express Mail," or overnight courier), the deposing party may serve
 redirect questions on every adverse party. Within 10 days from the date of
 service of the redirect questions (15 days, if service of the redirect questions
 was made by first-class mail, "Express Mail," or overnight courier), any party
 which served cross questions may serve recross questions upon the deposing
 party. A party which serves recross questions upon the deposing party must
 also serve copies thereof upon every other adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.124(d)(1). See also Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ
 861 (TTAB 1979).

 Written objections to questions may be served on the party which propounded
 the questions. A party which serves objections on a propounding party must
 also serve a copy of the objections on every other adverse party. In response to
 objections, substitute questions may be served on the objecting party within 10
 days from the date of service of the objections (15 days, if service of the
 objections was made by first-class mail, "Express Mail," or overnight courier).
 The substitute questions must also be served upon every other adverse party.
 See 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1). See also Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp.,
 18 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990).

 Upon motion for good cause filed by any party, or upon its own initiative, the
 Board may extend any of the time periods specified in 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1),
 that is, the time periods for serving cross questions, redirect questions, recross
 questions, objections, and substitute questions. Further, upon receipt of written
 notice that one or more testimony depositions are to be taken upon written
 questions, the Board will suspend or reschedule other proceedings in the matter
 to allow for the orderly completion of the depositions upon written questions.
 See 37 CFR 2.124(d)(2). See also TBMP 714.04 and cases cited therein.

 Within 10 days after the last date when questions, objections, or substitute
 questions may be served, the deposing party must mail a copy of the notice and
 copies of all the questions to the officer designated in the notice. A copy of the
 notice and of all the questions mailed to the officer must also be served on
 every adverse party. The officer designated in the notice shall take the
 testimony of the witness in response to the questions, and shall record each
 answer immediately after the corresponding question. See 37 CFR 2.124(e).

 An adverse party may attend the taking of the deposition if it so desires, not for
 the purpose of participating (its participation will have occurred previously,
 through its service of cross questions, recross questions, and objections, if any,
 pursuant to 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1)), but rather merely for the purpose of
 observing.

 If the parties so stipulate in writing, a deposition may be taken before any
 person authorized to administer oaths, at any place, upon any notice, and in any
 manner, and when so taken may be used like any other deposition. See 37
 CFR 2.123(b).

 714.08 Form of Deposition

 The officer before whom a deposition upon written questions is taken shall
 record each answer immediately after the corresponding question. See 37 CFR
 2.124(e).

 For further information concerning the form for a deposition taken in an inter
 partes proceeding before the Board, see 37 CFR 2.123(g), and TBMP 713.09.

 714.09 Signature of Deposition by Witness

 For information concerning signature of a deposition taken in an inter partes
 porceeding before the Board, see 37 CFR 2.123(e)(5), and TBMP 713.10.

 714.10 Certification of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.124(e) Within ten days after the last date when questions,
 objections, or substitute questions may be served, the party who proposes to
 take the deposition shall mail a copy of the notice and copies of all the
 questions to the officer designated in the notice; a copy of the notice and of all
 the questions mailed to the officer shall be served on every adverse party. The
 officer designated in the notice shall take the testimony of the witness in
 response to the questions and shall record each answer immediately after the
 corresponding question. The officer shall then certify the transcript and mail
 the transcript and exhibits to the party who took the deposition.

 After a deposition upon written questions has been taken by the officer
 designated in the notice of deposition, the transcript of the deposition must be
 certified by the officer. See 37 CFR 2.124(e). For information concerning
 certification of a deposition taken in an inter partes proceeding before the Board,
 see 37 CFR 2.123(f), and TBMP 713.11.

 When the transcript has been certified, the officer should mail the transcript and
 exhibits to the party which took the deposition. See 37 CFR 2.124(e).

 714.11 Service, Correction, and Filing of Deposition

 37 CFR 2.124(f) The party who took the deposition shall promptly serve a
 copy of the transcript, copies of documentary exhibits, and duplicates or
 photographs of physical exhibits on every adverse party. It is the responsibility
 of the party who takes the deposition to assure that the transcript is correct (see
 2.125(b)). If the deposition is a discovery deposition, it may be made of
 record as provided by 2.120(j). If the deposition is a testimonial deposition,
 the original, together with copies of documentary exhibits and duplicates or
 photographs of physical exhibits, shall be filed promptly with the Trademark
 Trial and Appeal Board.

 The party which took the deposition upon written questions must promptly serve
 a copy of the transcript, with exhibits, on every adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.124(f). See also TBMP 713.13.

 The party which took the deposition must also assure that the transcript is
 correct. See 37 CFR 2.124(f) and 2.125(b). For information concerning
 correction of errors in a deposition taken in a Board inter partes proceeding, see
 TBMP 713.14.

 If the deposition is a discovery deposition, it may be made of record as provided
 by 37 CFR 2.120(j). See 37 CFR 2.124(f). See also, with respect to making
 a discovery deposition of record, TBMP 709.

 If the deposition is a testimony deposition, the original, with exhibits, must be
 filed promptly with the Board. See 37 CFR 2.124(f).

 714.12 Testimony Deposition Must be Filed

 While the offering of a discovery deposition in evidence is voluntary, all trial
 testimony depositions that are taken in a Board inter partes proceeding must be
 filed in the PTO, and, when filed, automatically constitute part of the
 evidentiary record in the proceeding. See 37 CFR 2.123(h), and TBMP
 713.12.

 714.13 Objections to Deposition

 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1) ... Written objections to questions may be served on a
 party propounding questions; any party who objects shall serve a copy of the
 objections on every other adverse party. In response to objections, substitute
 questions may be served on the objecting party within ten days of the date of
 service of the objections; substitute questions shall be served on every other
 adverse party.

 * * *

 (g) Objections to questions and answers in depositions upon written questions
 may be considered at final hearing.

 Written objections to questions propounded for a deposition upon written
 questions may be served on the party which propounded the questions. Any
 party which serves written objections upon a propounding party must also serve
 a copy of the objections upon every other adverse party. See 37 CFR
 2.124(d)(1). See also TBMP 714.07.

 Objections to questions and answers in depositions upon written questions
 generally are considered by the Board (unless waived) at final hearing. See 37
 CFR 2.124(g), and Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409
 (TTAB 1990).

 For further information concerning the raising of objections to discovery
 depositions, see TBMP 405. For information concerning the raising of
 objections to a notice of reliance on a discovery deposition, see TBMP 718.02
 and 533.

 For further information concerning the raising of objections to trial testimony
 depositions, see TBMP 718.03 and 534.

 714.14 Confidential or Trade Secret Material

 For information concerning the protection of confidential or trade secret material
 forming part of a deposition transcript or exhibits thereto, see 37 CFR 2.125(e),
 and TBMP 713.16.

 714.15 Utility

 A deposition upon written questions is a cumbersome, time-consuming
 procedure. It requires that cross questions, redirect questions, recross questions,
 and objections all be framed and served before the questions upon direct
 examination have even been answered. Moreover, it deprives an adverse party
 of the right to confront the witness and ask follow-up questions on cross
 examination. See 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1); TBMP 714.07; Century 21 Real Estate
 Corp. v. Century Life of America, 15 USPQ2d 1079 (TTAB 1990), corrected,
 19 USPQ2d 1479 (TTAB 1990); Orion Group Inc. v. Orion Insurance Co.
 P.L.C., 12 USPQ2d 1923 (TTAB 1989); Feed Flavors Inc. v. Kemin Industries,
 Inc., 209 USPQ 589 (TTAB 1980); Fischer Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar &
 Co., 203 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); and Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice,
 Adversary Proceedings Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75
 Trademark Rep. 323, 397 (1985).

 Nevertheless, it has some utility. It may be the only means by which a
 deposition may be taken in a foreign country. See 37 CFR 2.120(c)(1) and
 2.123(a)(2), and TBMP 404.03(c), 713.02, and 714.01. Moreover, the
 deposition upon written questions is generally less expensive than the deposition
 upon oral examination, and is usually more convenient for the witness. Thus,
 even for a deposition to be taken in the United States, a deposing party may
 prefer to use the deposition upon written questions, particularly in those cases
 where the testimony will be short, simple, straight-forward, and not likely to be
 disputed, such as, to establish for the record examples of third-party usage. Cf.
 Feed Flavors Inc. v. Kemin Industries, Inc., 209 USPQ 589 (TTAB 1980).

 715 Testimony From Another Proceeding

 37 CFR 2.122(f) Testimony from other proceedings. By order of the
 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, on motion, testimony taken in another
 proceeding, or testimony taken in a suit or action in a court, between the same
 parties or those in privity may be used in a proceeding, so far as relevant and
 material, subject, however, to the right of any adverse party to recall or demand
 the recall for examination or cross-examination of any witness whose prior
 testimony has been offered and to rebut the testimony.

 Upon motion granted by the Board, testimony taken in another proceeding, or
 testimony taken in a suit or action in a court, between the same parties or their
 privies, may be used in a pending Board inter partes proceeding, to the extent
 that the testimony is relevant and material, subject "to the right of any adverse
 party to recall or demand the recall for examination or cross-examination of
 any witness whose prior testimony has been offered and to rebut the testimony."
 See 37 CFR 2.122(f). See also Focus 21 International Inc. v. Pola Kasei
 Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 22 USPQ2d 1316 (TTAB 1992); Nina Ricci S.A.R.L.
 v. E.T.F. Enterprises Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1988), rev'd on other
 grounds, 889 F.2d 1070, 12 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1989); MarCon Ltd. v.
 Avon Products Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1474 (TTAB 1987); Philip Morris Inc. v. Brown
 & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 230 USPQ 172, 182 (TTAB 1986); Oxy Metal
 Industries Corp. v. Technic, Inc., 189 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1975), summ. judgment
 granted, 191 USPQ 50 (TTAB 1976); and Izod, Ltd. v. La Chemise Lacoste,
 178 USPQ 440 (TTAB 1973).

 The Board has construed the term "testimony," as used in 37 CFR 2.122(f), as
 meaning only trial testimony (see Philip Morris Inc. v. Brown & Williamson
 Tobacco Corp., 230 USPQ 172, 182 (TTAB 1986)), or a discovery deposition
 which was used, by agreement of the parties, as trial testimony in the other
 proceeding.

 Testimony from another proceeding between the parties or their privies may be
 used, upon motion granted by the Board, as evidence in connection with a
 motion for summary judgment, or as evidence on the case, or both. See, for
 example: Nina Ricci S.A.R.L. v. E.T.F. Enterprises Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1061
 (TTAB 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 889 F.2d 1070, 12 USPQ2d 1901 (Fed.
 Cir. 1989) (evidence on the case), and Oxy Metal Industries Corp. v. Technic,
 Inc., 189 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1975), summ. judgment granted, 191 USPQ 50
 (TTAB 1976) (summary judgment evidence). However, when the Board allows
 testimony of this nature to be used in connection with a motion for summary
 judgment, the testimony (and any testimony taken upon recall of the same
 witness for examination or cross-examination, or in rebuttal thereof) is of record
 only for purposes of the motion; it will not be considered at final hearing if the
 case goes to trial, unless it is reintroduced, upon motion granted by the Board,
 during the appropriate trial period. See TBMP 528.05(a) and 528.05(e).

 For information concerning the filing of a motion for leave to use testimony
 from another proceeding, see TBMP 531.

 A testimony deposition from another proceeding may also be made of record in
 a Board proceeding by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board. The
 same is true of a discovery deposition.

 716 Stipulated Evidence

 Subject to the approval of the Board, parties may enter into a wide variety of
 stipulations concerning the admission of specified matter into evidence.

 For example, parties may stipulate that a party may rely upon specified
 responses to requests for discovery, or upon other specified documents or
 exhibits; or that the testimony of a witness may be submitted in the form of an
 affidavit by the witness; or what a particular witness would testify to if called;
 or to the facts in the case of any party; or that a discovery deposition may be
 used as testimony; or that evidence from another proceeding may be used as
 evidence in the proceeding in which the stipulation is filed. See, for example,
 37 CFR 2.123(b), and TBMP 707-711 and 713.02.

 The use of stipulated evidence normally results in savings of time and expense
 for all concerned. However, it is usually advisable that a party reserve the right
 to object to stipulated evidence on the grounds of competency, relevance, and
 materiality. See Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice, Adversary Proceedings
 Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75 Trademark Rep. 323, 397-
 398 (1985).

 717 Noncomplying Evidence

 37 CFR 2.123(l) Evidence not considered. Evidence not obtained and filed in
 compliance with these sections will not be considered.

 Evidence not obtained and filed in compliance with the rules of practice
 governing inter proceedings before the Board will not be considered by the
 Board. See 37 CFR 2.123(l). See also Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker
 Industries, Inc., 222 USPQ 1003 (TTAB 1984); Industrial Adhesive Co. v.
 Borden, Inc., 218 USPQ 945 (TTAB 1983); Angelica Corp. v. Collins &
 Aikman Corp., 192 USPQ 387 (TTAB 1976); Plus Products v. General Mills,
 Inc., 188 USPQ 520 (TTAB 1975); American Skein & Foundry Co. v. Stein,
 165 USPQ 85 (TTAB 1970); and Saul Lefkowitz and Janet E. Rice, Adversary
 Proceedings Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 75 Trademark Rep.
 323, 393 (1985).

 718 Objections to Evidence

 718.01 In General

 37 CFR 2.122(a) Rules of Evidence. The rules of evidence for proceedings
 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are the Federal Rules of
 Evidence, the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
 relevant provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code, and the provisions of
 this Part of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

 The introduction of evidence in inter partes proceedings before the Board is
 governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, the relevant portions of the Federal
 Rules of Civil Procedure, the relevant provisions of Title 28 of the United States
 Code, and the rules of practice in trademark cases (i.e., the provisions of Part 2
 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations). See 37 CFR 2.122(a). Cf.
 TBMP 101.01 and 101.02.

 A party to a Board inter partes proceeding which believes that evidence
 proffered therein by another party should, under the foregoing rules, be excluded
 from consideration, may, if it so desires, raise an objection thereto. The
 procedure for raising an objection to proffered evidence depends upon the nature
 of the evidence and the ground for objection.

 718.02 Objections to Notices of Reliance

 718.02(a) On Ground of Untimeliness

 During its testimony period, a party may make certain specified types of
 evidence of record by filing a notice of reliance thereon, accompanied by the
 evidence being offered. Rule 2.120(j), 37 CFR 2.120(j), provides for the
 introduction, by notice of reliance, of a discovery deposition, answer to
 interrogatory, or admission; but specifically states that documents obtained by
 production under FRCP 34 may not be made of record by notice of reliance
 alone, except to the extent that they are admissible by notice of reliance under
 the provisions of 37 CFR 2.122(e). Rule 2.122(d)(2), 37 CFR 2.122(d)(2),
 provides for the introduction, by notice of reliance, of a registration owned by a
 party to a proceeding. Rule 2.122(e), 37 CFR 2.122(e), provides for the
 introduction, by notice of reliance, of certain specified types of printed
 publications and official records. See also TBMP 703.02(a), 703.02(b),
 703.03, and 707-711.

 When a notice of reliance under any of the aforementioned rules is filed after
 the close of the offering party's testimony period, an adverse party may file a
 motion to strike the notice of reliance (and, thus, the evidence submitted
 thereunder), in its entirety, as untimely. Alternatively, an adverse party may
 raise this ground for objection in its brief on the case. See, for example, Jean
 Patou Inc. v. Theon Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1072 (TTAB 1990); May Department
 Stores Co. v. Prince, 200 USPQ 803 (TTAB 1978); Questor Corp. v. Dan
 Robbins & Associates, Inc., 199 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1978), aff'd, 599 F.2d 1009,
 202 USPQ 100 (CCPA 1979); and Miss Nude Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ
 729 (TTAB 1976), pet. to Comm'r den., 198 USPQ 485 (Comm'r 1977). Cf. Of
 Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel Chartered, 21 USPQ2d 1555 (TTAB 1991)
 (where opposer's testimony deposition was taken two days prior to opening of
 opposer's testimony period, and applicant first raised an untimeliness objection
 in its brief on the case, objection held waived, since the premature taking of the
 deposition could have been corrected upon seasonable objection).

 For information concerning motions to strike notices of reliance, see TBMP
 533.

 718.02(b) On Other Procedural Grounds

 An adverse party may object to a notice of reliance, in whole or in part, on the
 ground that the notice does not comply with the procedural requirements of the
 particular rule under which it was submitted, as, for example, that a 37 CFR
 2.122(e) notice of reliance on a printed publication does not include a copy of
 the printed publication, or does not indicate the general relevance thereof. See,
 for example, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); M-Tek
 Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990); Bison Corp. v.
 Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 USPQ2d 1718 (TTAB 1987); Chesebrough-Pond's Inc.
 v. Soulful Days, Inc., 228 USPQ 954 (TTAB 1985); Holiday Inns, Inc. v.
 Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1981); Johnson & Johnson v.
 American Hospital Supply Corp., 187 USPQ 478 (TTAB 1975); Rogers Corp. v.
 Fields Plastics & Chemicals, Inc., 172 USPQ 377 (TTAB 1972); and American
 Optical Corp. v. American Olean Tile Co., 169 USPQ 123 (TTAB 1971). For
 information concerning objection on the ground of untimeliness, see TBMP
 718.02(a).

 Ordinarily, a procedural objection to a notice of reliance should be raised
 promptly, preferably by motion to strike. However, if the ground for the
 objection is one which could not be cured even if raised promptly, the adverse
 party may wait and raise the procedural objection in its brief on the case. See,
 for example, Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290
 (TTAB 1986) (defect could have been cured); Alabama Board of Trustees v.
 BAMA-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408 (TTAB 1986) (defect could have
 been cured); Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo Numerico
 S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983) (objection raised in brief sustained); Quaker
 Oats Co. v. Acme Feed Mills, Inc., 192 USPQ 653 (TTAB 1976) (defect could
 have been cured); and Manpower, Inc. v. Manpower Information Inc., 190
 USPQ 18 (TTAB 1976) (defect could have been cured). See also Miss Nude
 Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976), pet. to Comm'r den., 198
 USPQ 485 (Comm'r 1977), and TBMP 718.02(a). For information concerning
 motions to strike notices of reliance, see TBMP 533.

 When, upon motion to strike a notice of reliance on the ground that it does not
 meet the procedural requirements of the rule under which it was filed, the Board
 finds that the notice is defective, but that the defect is curable, the Board may
 allow the party which filed the notice of reliance time in which to cure the
 defect, failing which the notice will stand stricken. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
 Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992); M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17
 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990); and Heaton Enterprises of Nevada Inc. v. Lang, 7
 USPQ2d 1842 (TTAB 1988).

 If a motion to strike a notice of reliance raises objections which cannot be
 resolved simply by reviewing the face of the notice of reliance (and attached
 documents), determination of the motion will be deferred by the Board until
 final hearing. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992),
 and M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990). When
 determination of a motion to strike a notice of reliance is deferred until final
 hearing, the parties should argue the matter alternatively in their briefs on the
 case.

 718.02(c) On Substantive Grounds

 An adverse party may object to a notice of reliance on substantive grounds, such
 as that evidence offered under the notice constitutes hearsay or improper
 rebuttal, or is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial. Objections of this nature
 normally should be raised in the objecting party's brief on the case, rather than
 by motion to strike, unless the ground for objection is one which could be cured
 if raised promptly by motion to strike. See, in this regard, 37 CFR 2.123(k),
 and FRCP 32(d)(3)(A). See also Louise E. Fruge', TIPS FROM THE TTAB:
 An "Object" Lesson, 72 Trademark Rep. 211 (1982). Cf. TBMP 718.02(b)
 and 718.03(c). This is because it is the policy of the Board not to read trial
 testimony or examine other trial evidence prior to final decision. See TBMP
 502.01, and authorities cited therein. If a motion to strike a notice of reliance
 raises objections which cannot be resolved simply by reviewing the face of the
 notice of reliance (and attached documents), determination of the motion will be
 deferred by the Board until final hearing. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24
 USPQ2d 1230 (TTAB 1992), and M-Tek Inc. v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d
 1070 (TTAB 1990).

 Evidence timely and properly introduced by notice of reliance under the
 applicable trademark rules generally will not be stricken, but the Board will
 consider any outstanding objections thereto in its evaluation of the probative
 value of the evidence at final hearing. See, for example, Jean Patou Inc. v.
 Theon Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1072 (TTAB 1990); Jetzon Tire & Rubber Corp. v.
 General Motors Corp., 177 USPQ 467 (TTAB 1973); and American Optical
 Corp. v. American Olean Tile Co., 169 USPQ 123 (TTAB 1971). Cf. TBMP
 718.03(c).

 Because the parties to an inter partes Board proceeding generally will not know
 until final decision whether a substantive objection to a notice of reliance has
 been sustained, they should argue the matter alternatively in their briefs on the
 case.

 718.03 Objections to Trial Testimony Depositions

 718.03(a) On Ground of Untimeliness

 A party may not take testimony outside of its assigned testimony period, except
 by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by
 the Board, or by order of the Board. See 37 CFR 2.121(a), and TBMP 701.

 When there is no such approved stipulation, or granted motion, or Board order,
 and a testimony deposition is taken after the close of the deposing party's
 testimony period, an adverse party may file a motion to strike the deposition, in
 its entirety, as untimely. See TBMP 534.01, and authorities cited therein.
 Alternatively, an adverse party may raise this ground for objection in its brief on
 the case. Cf. TBMP 718.02(a), and cases cited therein.

 On the other hand, when a testimony deposition is noticed for a date prior to the
 opening of the deposing party's testimony period, an adverse party which fails to
 promptly object to the scheduled deposition, on the ground of untimeliness, may
 be found to have waived this ground for objection, because the premature
 scheduling of a deposition is an error which can be corrected upon seasonable
 objection. See Of Counsel Inc. v. Strictly of Counsel Chartered, 21 USPQ2d
 1555 (TTAB 1991).

 718.03(b) On Ground of Improper or Inadequate Notice

 37 CFR 2.123(c) Notice of examination of witnesses. Before the depositions
 of witnesses shall be taken by a party, due notice in writing shall be given to
 the opposing party or parties, as provided in 2.119(b), of the time when and
 place where the depositions will be taken, of the cause or matter in which they
 are to be used, and the name and address of each witness to be examined; if the
 name of a witness is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the
 witness or the particular class or group to which the witness belongs, together
 with a satisfactory explanation, may be given instead. Depositions may be
 noticed for any reasonable time and place in the United States. A deposition
 may not be noticed for a place in a foreign country except as provided in
 paragraph (a)(2) of this section. No party shall take depositions in more than
 one place at the same time, nor so nearly at the same time that reasonable
 opportunity for travel from one place of examination to the other is not
 available.

 * * *

 (e)(3) Every adverse party shall have full opportunity to cross-examine each
 witness. If the notice of examination of witnesses which is served pursuant to
 paragraph (c) of this section is improper or inadequate with respect to any
 witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest while
 reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence.
 Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, if he wishes to
 preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record, which
 motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. A motion
 to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate notice of
 examination must request the exclusion of the entire testimony of that witness
 and not only a part of that testimony.

 Before testimony depositions upon oral examination may be taken by a party,
 the party must give every adverse party due notice in writing of the time when
 and place where the depositions will be taken, the cause or matter in which they
 are to be used, and the name and address of each witness to be deposed (or, if
 the name of a witness is not known, a general description sufficient to identify
 the witness or the particular class or group to which the witness belongs,
 together with a satisfactory explanation, may be given instead). See 37 CFR
 2.123(c). See also TBMP 713.05. Cf. FRCP 30(b)(1).

 If the notice of examination of witnesses served by a party is improper or
 inadequate with respect to any witness, such as, does not give due (i.e.,
 reasonable) notice, or does not identify a witness whose deposition is taken, an
 adverse party may cross-examine the witness under protest while reserving the
 right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence. However, promptly
 after the deposition is completed, the adverse party, if it wishes to preserve the
 objection, must move to strike the testimony from the record. See 37 CFR
 2.123(e)(3), and TBMP 534.02 and cases cited therein.

 A motion to strike a testimony deposition for improper or inadequate notice
 must request the exclusion of the entire deposition, not just a part thereof. The
 motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. See 37
 CFR 2.123(e)(3).

 For further information concerning the motion to strike a testimony deposition
 for improper or inadequate notice, see TBMP 534.02.

 718.03(c) On Other Grounds

 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3) Every adverse party shall have full opportunity to cross-
 examine each witness. If the notice of examination of witnesses which is served
 pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section is improper or inadequate with respect
 to any witness, an adverse party may cross-examine that witness under protest
 while reserving the right to object to the receipt of the testimony in evidence.
 Promptly after the testimony is completed, the adverse party, if he wishes to
 preserve the objection, shall move to strike the testimony from the record,
 which motion will be decided on the basis of all the relevant circumstances. A
 motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate notice
 of examination must request the exclusion of the entire testimony of that witness
 and not only a part of that testimony.

 (4) All objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of
 the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the
 evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other objection to
 the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the deposition. Evidence
 objected to shall be taken subject to the objections.

 * * *

 (j) Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. Rule 32(d)(1), (2), and
 (3)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to errors and
 irregularities in depositions. Notice will not be taken of merely formal or
 technical objections which shall not appear to have wrought a substantial injury
 to the party raising them; and in case of such injury it must be made to appear
 that the objection was raised at the time specified in said rule.

 (k) Objections to admissibility. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (j) of
 this section, objection may be made to receiving in evidence any deposition, or
 part thereof, or any other evidence, for any reason which would require the
 exclusion of the evidence from consideration. Objections to the competency of a
 witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony must be
 raised at the time specified in Rule 32(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil
 Procedure. Such objections will not be considered until final hearing.

 FRCP 32(d) Effect of Errors and Irregularities in Depositions.
 (1) As to Notice. All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a
 deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party
 giving the notice.

 (2) As to Disqualification of Officer. Objection to taking a deposition because
 of disqualification of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless
 made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the
 disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable
 diligence.

 (3) As to Taking of Deposition.
 (A) Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy,
 or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or
 during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one
 which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.

 (B) Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of
 taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or
 affirmation, or in the conduct of parties, and errors of any kind which might be
 obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented, are waived unless seasonable
 objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.

 An adverse party may object to a testimony deposition not only on the grounds
 of untimeliness (see TBMP 718.03(a)) and improper or inadequate notice (see
 TBMP 718.03(b)), but also on the ground that the deposing party has not
 complied with one or more of the other procedural requirements specified in the
 rules governing the taking of testimony in Board inter partes proceedings. In
 addition, objection may be made to a testimony deposition on one or more
 substantive grounds, such as that the witness is incompetent to testify, or that
 the testimony is irrelevant or constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal. The time
 and procedure for raising these objections is described below.

 Some objections to testimony depositions must be raised promptly, failing which
 they are waived. The objections which are waived unless raised promptly are
 basically procedural in nature. They include objections to errors and
 irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition (waived unless written
 objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice; in the case of an
 objection based upon improper or inadequate notice, waived unless the
 provisions of 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3) are followed--see TBMP 718.03(b));
 objections to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer before
 whom the deposition is to be taken (waived unless made before the taking of the
 deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or
 could be discovered with reasonable diligence); and objections based on errors
 and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the
 deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or
 in the conduct of parties, and errors of any kind which might be obviated,
 removed, or cured if promptly presented (waived unless seasonable objection
 thereto is made at the taking of the deposition). See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3) and
 2.123(j), and FRCP 32(d)(1),(2), and (3)(A) and (B). See also Chase Manhattan
 Bank, N.A. v. Life Care Services Corp., 227 USPQ 389 (TTAB 1985); Pass &
 Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1984); and TBMP 718.03(a).
 Cf. TBMP 718.02(b), and Miss Nude Florida, Inc. v. Drost, 193 USPQ 729
 (TTAB 1976), pet. to Comm'r den., 198 USPQ 485 (Comm'r 1977).

 Moreover, notice will not be taken of merely formal or technical objections,
 unless they were timely raised, and appear to have wrought a substantial injury
 to the party raising them. See 37 CFR 2.123(j); Beech Aircraft Corp. v.
 Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1986); and Pass & Seymour,
 Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1984). See also FRCP 61. This applies
 not only to errors and irregularities in the taking of a deposition, but also in the
 form of a deposition transcript (such as, improperly numbered pages or
 questions, improperly marked exhibits, etc.). See FRCP 61, and Pass &
 Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, supra.

 Other objections to testimony depositions are not waived for failure to make
 them during or before the taking of the deposition, provided that the ground for
 objection is not one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at
 that time. These objections, which are basically substantive in nature, include
 objections (1) to the competency of a witness, or (2) to the competency,
 relevance, or materiality of testimony, or (3) that the testimony constitutes
 hearsay or improper rebuttal. See 37 CFR 2.123(k); FRCP 32(d)(3)(A); Beech
 Aircraft Corp. v. Lightning Aircraft Co., 1 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1986); and
 Wright Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769 (TTAB 1985).
 When an objection of this type could not have been obviated or removed if
 presented at the deposition, it will be considered by the Board even if the
 objection is raised for the first time in a party's brief on the case. See Louise E.
 Fruge', TIPS FROM THE TTAB: An "Object" Lesson, 72 Trademark Rep. 211
 (1982). Cf. Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321
 (TTAB 1992).

 Substantive objections to testimony (that is, objections going to such matters as
 the competency of a witness, or the competency, relevance, or materiality of
 testimony, or the asserted hearsay or improper rebuttal nature of the testimony)
 are not considered by the Board prior to final hearing. See, for example,
 Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990);
 Liqwacon Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 203 USPQ 305 (TTAB
 1979); Primal Feeling Center of New England, Inc. v. Janov, 201 USPQ 44
 (TTAB 1978); and Globe-Union Inc. v. Raven Laboratories Inc., 180 USPQ 469
 (TTAB 1973). Cf. TBMP 718.02(c). This is because depositions are taken out
 of the presence of the Board, and it is the policy of the Board not to read trial
 testimony, or examine other trial evidence offered by the parties, prior to final
 decision. See TBMP 502.01, and authorities cited therein. Further, testimony
 regularly taken in accordance with the applicable rules ordinarily will not be
 stricken on the basis of a substantive objection; rather, any such objection
 (unless waived) will be considered by the Board in its evaluation of the
 probative value of the testimony at final hearing. See Marshall Field & Co. v.
 Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321 (TTAB 1992); Liqwacon Corp. v.
 Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., supra; Primal Feeling Center of New England,
 Inc. v. Janov, supra; and Globe-Union Inc. v. Raven Laboratories Inc., supra.
 Cf. TBMP 718.02(c).

 Similarly, if the propriety of a procedural (i.e., technical or formal) objection to
 a testimony deposition cannot be determined without reading the deposition, or
 examining other trial evidence, it generally will not be considered by the Board
 until final hearing. Cf. TBMP 718.02(b); Hilson Research Inc. v. Society for
 Human Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423 (TTAB 1993); and M-Tek Inc.
 v. CVP Systems Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1070 (TTAB 1990).

 For the foregoing reasons, the objections described in this section (as opposed to
 the objection to testimony as late-taken, which may be raised by motion to
 strike--see TBMP 534.01 and 718.03(a); and the objection based upon
 improper or inadequate notice of the taking of a deposition, which is the subject
 of the motion to strike procedure described in 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3) and TBMP
 534.02 and 718.03(b)), generally should not be raised by motion to strike.
 Rather, the objections should simply be made in writing at the time specified in
 the rules cited above, or orally "on the record" at the taking of the deposition, as
 appropriate. These objections, if properly asserted and not waived or rendered
 moot, normally will be considered by the Board in its determination of the case
 at final hearing. See 37 CFR 2.123(k). Cf. TBMP 718.02(c).

 When a deposition is taken upon written questions pursuant to 37 CFR 2.124,
 written objections to questions (that is, the direct questions, cross questions,
 redirect questions, and recross questions) may be served upon the party
 propounding the subject questions. A party which serves written objections
 upon a propounding party must also serve a copy of the objections upon every
 other adverse party. See 37 CFR 2.124(d)(1), and TBMP 714.07. Objections
 to questions and answers in depositions upon written questions generally are
 considered by the Board (unless waived) at final hearing. See TBMP 714.13.

 Because parties which have raised objections to testimony depositions generally
 will not know the disposition thereof until final decision, they should argue the
 matters alternatively in their briefs on the case.

 718.03(d) Refusal to Answer Deposition Question

 When an objection is made to a question propounded during a testimony
 deposition, the question ordinarily should be answered subject to the objection.
 However, a witness may properly refuse to answer a question asking for
 information which is, for example, privileged or confidential. See TBMP
 404.02, and authorities cited therein.

 If a witness not only objects to, but also refuses to answer, a particular question,
 the propounding party may obtain an immediate ruling on the propriety of the
 objection only by the unwieldy process of adjourning the deposition and
 applying, under 35 U.S.C. 24, to the Federal district court, in the jurisdiction
 where the deposition is being taken, for an order compelling the witness to
 answer. See TBMP 404.02, and authorities cited therein.

 There is no mechanism for obtaining from the Board, prior to final hearing, a
 ruling on the propriety of an objection to a question propounded during a
 testimony deposition. See TBMP 404.02 and 718.03(c), and authorities cited
 therein. Accordingly, where the witness in a testimony deposition refuses to
 answer a particular question; no court action is sought; and the Board finds at
 final hearing that the objection was not well taken, the Board may presume that
 the answer would have been unfavorable to the position of the party whose
 witness refused to answer, or may find that the refusal to answer reduces the
 probative value of the witness's testimony. See Health-Tex Inc. v. Okabashi
 (U.S.) Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1990); Seligman & Latz, Inc. v. Merit
 Mercantile Corp., 222 USPQ 720 (TTAB 1984); Ferro Corp. v. SCM Corp.,
 219 USPQ 346 (TTAB 1983); Entex Industries, Inc. v. Milton Bradley Co., 213
 USPQ 1116 (TTAB 1982); Data Packaging Corp. v. Morning Star, Inc., 212
 USPQ 109 (TTAB 1981); Donut Shops Management Corp. v. Mace, 209 USPQ
 615 (TTAB 1981); S. Rudofker's Sons, Inc. v. "42" Products, Ltd., 161 USPQ
 499 (TTAB 1969); and Bordenkircher v. Solis Entrialgo y Cia., S. A., 100
 USPQ 268, 276-278 (Comm'r 1953). Cf. Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92, 144
 USPQ 661 (CCPA 1965). But see University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C.
 Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505, 510 (Fed. Cir.
 1983).

 For information concerning refusal to answer a discovery deposition question,
 see: TBMP sections 404.02, 404.03(b)(2), 405.03, 415.03, and 523.

 718.04 Waiver of Objection

 A party may waive an objection to evidence by failing to raise the objection at
 the appropriate time. See 37 CFR 2.123(e)(3), 2.123(j), and 2.123(k); FRCP
 32(d)(1),(2), and (3)(A) and (B); and TBMP 718.02 and 718.03.

 For example, an objection to a notice of reliance on the ground that the notice
 does not comply with the procedural requirements of the particular rule under
 which it was submitted generally should be raised promptly. If a party fails to
 raise an objection of this nature promptly, the objection may be deemed waived,
 unless the ground for objection is one which could not have been cured even if
 raised promptly. See TBMP 718.02(a) and 718.02(b), and authorities cited
 therein.

 Similarly, an objection to a testimony deposition on the ground that it does not
 comply with the applicable procedural rules generally is waived if not raised
 promptly, unless the ground for objection is one which could not have been
 cured even if raised promptly. See TBMP 718.03(a), 718.03(b), and
 718.03(c), and authorities cited therein.

 On the other hand, objections to a notice of reliance, or to a testimony
 deposition, on substantive grounds, such as, that the proffered evidence
 constitutes hearsay or improper rebuttal, or is incompetent, irrelevant, or
 immaterial, generally are not waived for failure to raise them promptly, unless
 the ground for objection is one which could have been cured if raised promptly.
 See TBMP 718.02(c) and 718.03(c), and authorities cited therein.

 If testimony is submitted in affidavit form by stipulation of the parties pursuant
 to 37 CFR 2.123(b), any objection which is waived if not made at deposition
 must be raised promptly after receipt of the affidavit submission, failing which it
 is waived. See Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Life Care Services Corp., 227
 USPQ 389 (TTAB 1985).

 If a party fails to attend a testimony deposition, any objection which is waived
 if not made at the deposition, is waived. See Notice of Final Rulemaking
 published in the Federal Register on May 23, 1983 at 48 FR 23122, at 23132,
 and in the Official Gazette of June 21, 1983 at 1031 TMOG 13, at 22; Wright
 Line Inc. v. Data Safe Services Corp., 229 USPQ 769 (TTAB 1985); Pass &
 Seymour, Inc. v. Syrelec, 224 USPQ 845 (TTAB 1984); and T. Jeffrey Quinn,
 TIPS FROM THE TTAB: The Rules Are Changing, 74 Trademark Rep. 269,
 274 (1984).

 Additionally, a party may waive an objection which was seasonably raised at
 trial, by failing to preserve the objection in its brief on the case. See Reflange,
 Inc. v. R-Con International, 17 USPQ2d 1125 (TTAB 1990); United Rum
 Merchants Ltd. v. Fregal, Inc., 216 USPQ 217 (TTAB 1982); Medtronic, Inc. v.
 Medical Devices, Inc., 204 USPQ 317 (TTAB 1979); Volkswagenwerk
 Aktiengesellschaft v. Clement Wheel Co., 204 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1979); Fischer
 Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Molnar & Co., 203 USPQ 861 (TTAB 1979); and
 Copperweld Corp. v. Astralloy-Vulcan Corp., 196 USPQ 585 (TTAB 1977).