Menu
On January 29, 2026, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Opposer Alec’s Ice Cream, Inc. (“Opposer”)’s motion to compel in connection with a trademark dispute over the registration of Applicant LEC S.r.l. (“Applicant”)’s mark 
. The Board denied Opposer’s motion because Opposer did not make a “good faith effort” to resolve discovery disputes through “conference or correspondence” with Applicant prior to filing a motion to compel with the Board.
Haug Partners successfully argued that Opposer’s motion should be denied because Opposer failed to follow well-established Trademark Rule 2.120(f)(1),1 which requires that “before bringing a motion to compel, a party seeking relief must show it has made a good faith effort, by conference or correspondence, to resolve with the other party or its attorney the issues presented in the motion, and has been unable to reach agreement.”2 Accordingly, “[a] motion to compel must be supported by a written statement from the moving party that it has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute with the other party and has been unable to do so.”3 A failure to do so “only serves to waste the parties’ and the Board’s time and resources.”4
The Board agreed with Haug Partners that Opposer did not make a good faith effort to meet and confer with Applicant and resolve the disputes prior to filing its motion. The Board made particular note that Opposer made “shifting demands,”5 such as demanding an immediate, telephonic meet-and-confer and then subsequently refusing to participate in a meet-and-confer unless it received a detailed written response to a discovery letter. Accordingly, the Board found that “Opposer was not making a legitimate, good faith effort to try to resolve, or at the very least narrow, the issues in dispute before filing its motion to compel.”6
Haug Partners represents LEC S.r.l. in this matter. LEC S.r.l. is represented by Ben Natter, Michael Barer, and Anna Lukacher of Haug Partners.