El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Company, Inc.
825 F.3d 1161
10th Cir.2016Background
- El Encanto opposed Hatch Chile Company’s TTAB trademark application for the term “Hatch,” alleging geographic descriptiveness and deceptive use (including use of non-Hatch-Valley chiles).
- During TTAB discovery, Hatch Chile directed El Encanto to seek provenance documents from its nonparty suppliers/co-packers; El Encanto served a Rule 45 subpoena on nonparty Mizkan Americas for documents identifying chile sources.
- Hatch Chile moved for a protective order and Mizkan moved to quash the subpoena, arguing Rule 45 requires a deposition be noticed to accompany a nonparty document subpoena in TTAB cases.
- The district court granted Mizkan’s motion to quash, accepting the argument that a deposition notice was a prerequisite to compel nonparty documents in this context.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that neither the Federal Rules, the governing statutes, nor PTO regulations require a party in a TTAB contested proceeding to convene a deposition in order to obtain nonparty documents via Rule 45.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties in TTAB contested proceedings can use a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain nonparty documents without also noticing a deposition | El Encanto: Rule 45 (as amended) permits document-only subpoenas to nonparties; § 24 incorporates Federal Rules as they exist, allowing such discovery | Hatch Chile/Mizkan: § 24 (and PTO guidance) requires a deposition be noticed when seeking nonparty documents; TBMP forbids serving production requests on nonparties without a deposition | Reversed district court; Rule 45 allows nonparty document subpoenas without convening a deposition in TTAB cases, consistent with § 24 and PTO regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Frontier Ref. Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695 (10th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review and legal-error standard)
- Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing scope of § 24 access to federal discovery)
- Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enters. Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir.) (analyzing TBMP persuasiveness and PTO authority)
- Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir.) (treating § 24 as affording broader Federal Rules discovery access)
- Natta v. Zletz, 379 F.2d 615 (7th Cir.) (same)
- Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 430 F.2d 1177 (2d Cir.) (same)
- Frilette v. Kimberlin, 508 F.2d 205 (3d Cir.) (reading § 24 as limited to Rule 45 procedures)
- Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Peabody Coal Co., 554 F.2d 310 (7th Cir.) (statutory interpretation principle: incorporated law is read as current law)