In trademark prosecution, Applicants may make video files of record during prosecution by submitting them in one of the formats designated as acceptable by the USPTO, such as .wav, .wmv, .wma, .mp3, .mpg, or .avi format, and in a size not to exceed 30 MB. See, e.g., In re Fantasia Distrib., Inc., No. 86185623, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 471, at *21 n.13 (TEAS accepts multimedia evidence, including video files under 30 MB); cf. TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 904.03(l) (“Specimens for Motion Marks”). 

But in an ex parte appeal involving a trademark application and the time for filing a request for reconsideration has lapsed, the only way to make a new video of record is to file a written request to the TTAB for remand with a showing of good cause prior to the deadline for filing an applicant's main appeal brief. See TBMP §§ 1207.02 (“Request to Remand for Additional Evidence”) and 1209.04 (“Remand in Appeal of Refusal of Application - Upon Request by Applicant”) and cases cited therein. 

Because the filing system for uploading submissions to the TTAB via TTABVUE does not have the technical capacity to accept video files, an applicants should, if possible, file a transcript of the video content to support the request for remand with the TTAB, and indicate that if and when the remand request is granted and jurisdiction is restored to the examining attorney, the applicant will submit the video file through the Trademark Examining Operation's (“TMEO”) electronic filing system so that it can be uploaded to TSDR. 

Accordingly, “applicants should not wait until after the filing of a notice of appeal to attempt to make video evidence of record.” In re Jason Jimenez, Ser. No. 97551823 (TTAB Nov. 5, 2025) (precedential). 

The TTAB gave no consideration to the screenshots and hyperlinks to the videos embedded in Applicant's appeal brief, and any arguments associated therewith, because providing only a link and screenshot to a video is insufficient to make its content of record due to the transitory nature of websites. See In re Change Wind Corp., No. 86046590, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 233, at *23 n.8 (providing only a web address or hyperlink is insufficient to make such materials of record); In re HSB Solomon Assocs. LLC, No. 77136242, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 79, at *9 (Board will not utilize web address to access site and consider whatever content appears).

John Welch noted on TTABlog  that, for audio or video files in inter partes proceedings, a party must record the materials on an appropriate medium, such as a CD-ROM or DVD, and physically file that medium with the Board, citing TBMP 106.03 and Hunter Indus., Inc. v. The Toro Co., 110 USPQ2d 1651 (TTAB 2014). 

On the merits, the TTAB noted that because neither GASPER or JASPER is a coined term, the case law does not require that these two terms may be pronounced in an identical manner so as to be phonetic equivalents. Accordingly, the TTAB held “Gasper” would be pronounced with a hard letter “g” sound and that “Jasper” would be pronounced with a soft “j” sound, “consistent with the rules of pronunciation for U.S. English.” Finding that “Gasper” and “Jasper” sound different when verbalized, and coupled with an elevated level of purchaser care, the TTAB reversed a Section 2(d) refusal of GASPER ROOFING over the registered mark JASPER CONTRACTORS notwithstanding the identical nature of the services, trade channels and classes of consumers.