World Kanreikai Karate, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 2010

No. 78448346re (T.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2010)

Mailed: January 13, 2010 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ In re World Kanreikai Karate, LLC ________ Serial No. 78448346 _______ Reconsideration _______ George A. Coury of Bachman & LaPointe for World Kanreikai Karate, LLC. Doritt Carroll, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116 (Robert Lorenzo, Acting Managing Attorney). _______ Before Walters, Holtzman and Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge: On October 1, 2009, the Board issued a final decision in the above-captioned proceeding. In this decision, we affirmed on appeal the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register applicant’s mark on the ground that the mark shown in the drawing is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as actually used, as shown on THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Ser. No. 78448346 2 the specimens of use. See Trademark Rule 2.56(a), 37 CFR §2.56(a). On November 2, 2009, applicant filed a timely request for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. Pointing to the Board’s acknowledgement that the determination of whether the drawing in the application is a substantially exact representation of the mark as used is subjective, applicant contends that the Board failed to consider the evidence of record that allegedly demonstrates that “WORLD is primarily geographically descriptive or generic.” (Request for Reconsideration, p. 2.) Applicant states that it “has facilities which offer the subject services under the subject mark in the [United States], Canada, Poland and Israel. These services are therefore offered on a worldwide basis.” (Id.) Applicant asserts that it stated this information during both prosecution and appeal. Applicant also asserts that the record contains evidence of “other common uses of the term WORLD which show descriptive and generic common use of the term.” (Id.) It has often been stated that the premise underlying a request for rehearing, reconsideration, or modification under Trademark Rule 2.129(c) is that, based on the evidence of record and the prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching the decision it issued. See TBMP Ser. No. 78448346 3 §544 (2d ed. rev. 2004) and the authorities cited therein. The request may not be used to introduce additional evidence, nor should it be devoted simply to a reargument of the points presented in the requesting party's brief on the case. See Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 201 USPQ 126 (TTAB 1978). Rather, the request normally should be limited to a demonstration that, based on the evidence properly of record and the applicable law, the Board's ruling is in error and requires appropriate change. See, for example, Steiger Tractor Inc. v. Steiner Corp., 221 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984), different results reached on reh’g, 3 USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984). Cf. In re Kroger Co., 177 USPQ 715, 717 (TTAB 1973). Contrary to applicant’s contention, it points to no error on the part of the Board in our decision of October 1, 2009, on final hearing. Rather, opposer disagrees with the result reached therein, and reargues points previously raised in support of its contention that we should consider WORLD KENREIKAI KARATE to be a unitary mark that is a substantially exact representation of applicant’s mark as used on its specimens of use. The Board considered applicant’s statements regarding the scope of its services under the mark and its mere allegations about third-party uses of WORLD, found these statements insufficient, and Ser. No. 78448346 4 concluded that “there is no evidence that the term WORLD is primarily geographically descriptive or generic.” (Board Decision, p. 5.) Moreover, the Board specifically noted that whether or not the term “WORLD may be a weak term in a trademark … does not lead us to the conclusion that [WORLD] is not an integral part of the mark herein as that mark is used on the specimens of record.” (Id.) As a result, we remain of the opinion that our October 1, 2009, decision is correct. Accordingly, opposer’s request for reconsideration is denied.