Green Bancorp., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2012

No. 78659571re (T.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2012)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.

Mailed: April 10, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Green Bancorp, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78659563
Serial No. 78659571
_______

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

_______

James R. Menker of Holley & Menker, P.A. for
Green Bancorp, Inc.

Laura A. Hammel, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
107 (J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Mermelstein and Bergsman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Green Bancorp, Inc. (“applicant”) filed intent-to-use
applications to register the marks GREEN BANCORP, INC. and
GREEN BANK, in standard character form, for “banking,
namely, depository services, namely, accepting FDIC-insured
deposits and providing deposit accounts,” in Class 36.
Serial No. 78659563
Serial No. 78659571
2
Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use “Bancorp,
Inc.” and “Bank” in the respective applications.
In a decision mailed December 5, 2011, the Board
affirmed the refusal to register the applications on the
ground that applicant’s marks are merely descriptive when
used in connection with banking services.
On January 5, 2012, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the December 5, 2011 decision. As
grounds for reconsideration, applicant asserts the
following arguments:
1. The meaning of GREEN BANK is nebulous and
amorphous and varies from consumer to consumer (page 2):
it is indirect and vague (page 2);
2. The term GREEN BANK is an ephemeral concept and
consumers are likely to have various ideas about how
applicant’s banking services create a socially conscious
result (page 2);
3. The term “Green Bank” does not describe in a
clear and precise way a significant aspect of banking
services (pages 2-3); and
4. The word “green” in the mark GREEN BANK has
multiple meanings (pages 3-4).
In its request for reconsideration, applicant
essentially reargues its case, addressing the Board’s
Serial No. 78659563
Serial No. 78659571
3
analysis and findings of facts. The request for
reconsideration is akin to a brief in opposition to the
decision. However, the premise of a request for
reconsideration is that, based on the evidence of record
and the prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching
its decision. In other words, the request for
reconsideration should be limited to a demonstration that
based on the evidence of record and the applicable law, the
Board’s ruling is in error and must be changed. See TBMP
§§543 and 1219.01 (3rd. ed. 2011). Other than disagreeing
with the decision and rearguing its case, applicant did not
specifically point out erroneous findings of fact or any
misapplication of the law.
After careful review of the evidence of record, the
December 5, 2011 decision and applicant’s request for
reconsideration, we find that the decision was correct and
that we did not make any erroneous findings of fact or
incorrectly apply the appropriate authorities.
Decision: Applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.