The Hermitage Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2002

No. 75533137re (T.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2002)

3/12/02

Paper No. 19
TJQ

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re The Hermitage Group, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/533,137
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Anthony S. Zummer of Palmatier & Zummer for applicant.

Lynn A. Luthey, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
102 (Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Holtzman and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Board, in a decision dated January 15, 2002,
affirmed the refusal to register under Section 2(a) of the
Trademark Act on the ground that applicant’s mark falsely
suggests a connection with an institution, namely the
Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. The Board
found that the mark sought to be registered is a close
approximation of the name of the art museum in Russia, and
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Application Serial No. 75/533,137
2
that the mark would be recognized as such. In making its
determination, the Board recognized that the term
“Hermitage” has a variety of meanings. Notwithstanding
these other meanings, the mark sought to be registered must
be considered as a whole and, in this case, the design of
an artist’s palette and brushes reinforces the mark’s
identification with the renowned art museum. The Board
pointed out that the other meanings of the term “hermitage”
have nothing to do with art and, thus, the only “person” or
“institution” which the mark HERMITAGE with an artist’s
palette and brushes design possibly identifies is the
Hermitage Museum.
Applicant has timely filed a request for
reconsideration. Applicant takes the opportunity to
respond to the encyclopedia evidence of which the Board
took judicial notice in its decision. Applicant points to
alleged different translations (Russian to English) of the
name of the museum and posits that the name of the museum
in English is “amorphous.”
Applicant’s arguments merely reiterate the ones
already made but found to be unpersuasive. As pointed out
by the Board, the English language version of the museum’s
own website translates the name of the museum as “The State
Application Serial No. 75/533,137
3
Hermitage Museum,” and the site includes references to the
museum as “The Hermitage.”
Applicant also accuses the Board of speculation when
the Board indicated that the mark falsely suggests that
applicant’s printed art reproductions are of art displayed
in the Hermitage, or of artists who have some of their
works displayed in the museum or are of artists schooled at
the Hermitage. The Board finds it curious that applicant
has not denied the above finding. Thus, the Board remains
of the view that the mark is likely used in connection with
printed art reproductions that are, for example, of works
by artists trained in St. Petersburg’s Hermitage Museum.
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
The decision dated January 15, 2002 stands.