Sparta Beverage LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 2014

No. 77532353re (T.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014)

Mailed:
August 20, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Sparta Beverage LLC
________

Serial No. 77532353
On Request for Reconsideration
_______

Sparta Beverage LLC, pro se1.

Lourdes Ayala, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106 (Mary I. Sparrow,
Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Wellington, and Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On July 1, 2014, the Board issed an order affirming the Office’s refusal to
register Applicant’s mark SPARTAN ENERGY and design, as shown below, for
goods ultimately identified as “enhanced beverages, namely energy drinks,” on the
ground of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(d):

1 Represented by Sam Hope, General Manager.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77532353
- 2 -

The Board also affirmed a refusal to accept an amendment of goods, including
a reinsertion of previously deleted goods, proffered by Applicant in its May 29, 2013
Response to Office Action.
Applicant filed a timely Request for Reconsideration on August 1, 2014. In
the Request for Reconsideration, Applicant does not take issue with our affirmance
of the refusal on the ground of likelihood of confusion. Applicant only addresses that
portion of our decision affirming the Examining Attorney’s refusal to allow
Applicant to reinsert previously deleted goods in its identification, arguing that the
Board did not properly construe TMEP § 1402.07(e) which contains the language
Serial No. 77532353
- 3 -
“ . . . when before publication” because Applicant did in fact reinsert voluntarily
deleted goods before publication. On this basis Applicant requests reconsideration
of the Board’s decision.2 Applicant additionally requests remand to the Examining
Attorney of the application so that Applicant can amend its goods.
We take note of Applicant’s argument and the language cited. However, as
stated in our July 1 decision, TMEP § 1402.07(e) refers only to Examiner’s
amendments and is inapplicable to Applicant’s situation. As to Applicant’s request
for remand, we note that this is outside the jurisdiction of the Board. See Rule
2.142(g) (limiting the jurisdiction of the Board to reopen an application “which has
been considered and decided on appeal” to “the entry of a disclaimer under section 6
of the Act of 1946”). Accordingly, Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration and for
remand is denied.

2 Although Applicant did not reference our ruling on likelihood of confusion, we remind
Applicant that the reinsertion of goods would not change the outcome of that decision, as
noted in footnote 6 of the July 1 decision.