Lisa Hawkinsv.Green Resources Group, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardOct 16, 2012

No. 91190109re (T.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2012)

Mailed: October 16, 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 opposer’s notice of opposition regarding registration of the mark IT’S HIP TO BE GREEN (in standard character form) for goods including paper bags, paper containers, recycled paper, stationery, bumper stickers, decals, stickers and calendars. On July 12, 2012, opposer filed a request for reconsideration of the Board’s June 12, 2012 decision. On THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. Opposition No. 91190109 2 August 14, 2012, the Board denied opposer’s request for reconsideration. On August 17, 2012, opposer filed a second request for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, opposer’s second request for reconsideration is denied. 1. Opposer’s second request for reconsideration was not timely filed. Any request for rehearing or reconsideration or modification of a decision issued after final hearing must be filed within one month from the date of the decision. Trademark Rule 2.129(c). Opposer filed its request for reconsideration from the Board's June 12, 2012 order on August 17, 2012, over sixty days after the Board issued the decision, and it is therefore untimely. 2. There is no provision in the Trademark Rules for filing a second or subsequent request for reconsideration. 3. The Board found in its original decision that priority is not an issue for the goods set forth in opposer’s registration (shirts and hats) and that opposer established her priority for “on-line retail store services featuring clothing items, bath and body products, air fresheners, disinfectants and cleaning products.” Decision at 16. The Board also assumed that opposer has common law priority for shirts and hats. It appears that opposer believes that priority for “on-line retail store services featuring clothing items, bath and body products, air Opposition No. 91190109 3 fresheners, disinfectants and cleaning products” means that opposer has priority for particular goods. See first request for reconsideration at 7 (“Thus, all of the foregoing goods travel in the same channel of trade, which makes confusion as to the source of these goods likely in view of the identify between the marks in this case.”); and second request for reconsideration at 2 (“That is so, because, as explained in numbered paragraph 2 above, the Board had already concluded that Opposer established her priority with respect to all those goods.”) (Emphasis added.) The recitation “On-line retail store services featuring clothing items, bath and body products, air fresheners, disinfectants and cleaning products” identifies services; it is not an identification of goods. Opposer has not established priority for “bath products, disinfectants and cleaning products.” Thus, Exhibit 16 is of no assistance to opposer to demonstrate, as opposer states at p. 2 of its second request for reconsideration, “the relatedness between (i) the recycled paper, compostable food containers, paper bags, and paper containers included in the goods recited in the opposed ‘151 Application, and (ii) the bath products, disinfectants, and cleaning products recited in Opposer’s ‘097 Application.” Further, if opposer had established priority with respect to the goods “recycled paper, compostable food Opposition No. 91190109 4 containers, paper bags and paper containers,” Exhibit 16 is of limited probative value in demonstrating the relatedness of trade channels; the exhibit lists numerous goods spanning from light bulbs to bamboo plates to showerheads. The Board will not assume that all of such goods travel in the same trade channels. The Board will not consider any further papers filed by opposer in this proceeding. Decision: Opposer’s second request for reconsideration is denied.