Michael R. Nevils and Kristen Nevils

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2008

No. 78912361re (T.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2008)

Mailed: November 10, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Michael R. Nevils and Kristen Nevils
________

Serial No. 78912361
_______

Daniel S. Polley for Michael and Kristen Nevils.

Emily K. Carlsen, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
103, Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney.
_______

Before Zervas, Mermelstein, and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On September 29, 2008, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision issued on August
29, 2008, affirming the examining attorney’s final refusal
to register applicant’s mark pursuant to Trademark Act
§ 2(d).
As grounds for its request, applicant points out (as
it had in briefing the case) that its goods and those of
the prior registrant differ, and questions the Board’s
weighing of the evidence.
THIS DECISION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 78912361
2
It is axiomatic that the purpose of reconsideration is
to point out errors made by the Board in making its
decision, not to merely reargue the case or ask the Board to
reweigh the evidence as applicant has done:
A motion that merely republishes the reasons that
had failed to convince the tribunal in the first
place gives the tribunal no reason to change its
mind. It’s as if the movant, when he appealed,
had filed two copies of his appeal brief, and
when his appeal was rejected asked us to read the
second copy. Reconsideration is not an
appropriate forum for rehashing previously
rejected arguments or arguing matters that could
have been heard during the pendency of the
previous motion. The repetition of previous
arguments is not sufficient to prevail.

Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 248 (7th Cir. 2004)
(citations and internal quotations omitted).
The basis for the Board’s decision is clearly
articulated and we do not find any error in reaching that
decision. While we will not review applicant’s arguments in
detail, we note that our original decision acknowledged that
“the goods at issue are clearly different,” Decision at 6,
but nonetheless found them related in function. Given the
fact that the marks at issue are “virtually identical,” we
found that relationship to be sufficient to support the
examining attorney’s refusal in this case.
In view of the foregoing, applicant’s request for
reconsideration is DENIED.