Lisa Hawkinsv.Green Resources Group, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2012

No. 91190109re (T.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2012)

Mailed:
August 14, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Lisa Hawkins

v.

Green Resources Group, LLC
_____

Opposition No. 91190109
_____

T. Robert Rehm, Jr., Blake S. Fricks and Venus Liles of
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan,
L.L.P. for Lisa Hawkins.

Varesha Mauney, President of Green Resources Group LLC.
______

Before Zervas, Taylor and Ritchie, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On June 12, 2012, the Board dismissed Lisa Hawkins’
(“opposer”) opposition to the registration of Green
Resources Group, LLC’s (“applicant”) mark IT’S HIP TO BE
GREEN for goods including paper bags, paper containers,
recycled paper, stationery, bumper stickers, decals,
stickers and calendars.
THIS OPINION IS
NOT A PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Opposition No. 91190109
2
On July 12, 2012, opposer filed a request for
reconsideration of the June 12, 2012 decision, directed
largely to the Board’s treatment of the question of
priority. Generally, the premise underlying a request for
rehearing, reconsideration, or modification under 37 CFR
§ 2.129(c) is that, based on the evidence of record and the
prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching the
decision it issued.
Opposer’s request for reconsideration is denied for the
following reasons:
1. Opposer relies on a new affidavit by Lisa Hawkins
dated July 12, 2012 “to explain, clarify and respond to the
various points raised by the Board in its Decision.” Brief
at 1. A request for reconsideration may not be used to
introduce additional evidence. TBMP § 543 (2nd ed. rev.
2004). Thus, we may not consider the July 12, 2012
affidavit and do not consider the arguments which cite to
the affidavit for support.1
2. Opposer repeats several of her arguments made in
her trial brief. A request for reconsideration should not
be used for re-argument of points already made in a trial
brief. See TBMP § 518 (3rd ed. rev. 2012).

1 Opposer at various places in her request for reconsideration
refers to “the Board’s inquiry.” We make clear that we did not
request additional information in our decision; indeed the
Trademark Rules do not allow for us to do so. The record closed
at the conclusion of the trial period.
Opposition No. 91190109
3
3. Opposer points to evidence in the trial record
which has no probative value on the question of priority.
On p. 7 of her request for reconsideration, she relies on
Ex. 16 to the affidavit of Loretta Plitnick, a webpage from
the letsgogreen.biz website. The webpage is dated November
12, 2010, which is well after the filing date of applicant’s
application, and there was no supporting evidence providing
that this webpage was in existence prior to the filing date
of applicant’s application.
In addition, opposer states that the Board erred in
referring to opposer’s alleged first use date as “September
20, 2006,” when Ms. Hawkins, in her trial affidavit, stated
that her first use date was “at least as early as September
20, 2006.” Opposer would have us accord opposer a priority
date earlier than September 20, 2006 in view of the
qualifier “at least as early as” which precedes the
September 20, 2006 date. Opposer chose indefinite language
in asserting her priority date. If opposer intended to
claim an earlier date than September 20, 2006 as her
priority date, she should have identified that date with
specificity. It was opposer’s burden to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that she used her mark in the
United States prior to the filing date of the application.
In addition, the balance of the evidence – as presented by

Opposition No. 91190109
4
opposer at trial - does not support an earlier first use
date.
Opposer’s remaining arguments do not persuade the Board
that the Board erred in reaching the decision it issued.
-o0o-