B. Gould Jewelry, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2009

No. 78836910re (T.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2009)

Mailed:
March 17, 2009
jtw

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re B. Gould Jewelry, Inc.

Reconsideration
________

Serial No. 78836910
_______

B. Craig Killough of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms LLC
for B. Gould Jewelry, Inc.

Michael A. Wiener, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney)
_______

Before Hairston, Walsh and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walsh, Administrative Trademark Judge:

In a paper filed January 22, 2009, B. Gould Jewelry,
Inc. (applicant) requests reconsideration of our decision
of December 22, 2008.
In the request, applicant once again argues that its
mark, CHARLESTON GATE, is not merely descriptive of the
identified goods, “jewelry, namely, earrings, necklaces,
pins, slides, rings, bracelets, pendants, charms, key
THIS OPINION
IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 78836910
2
rings,” because “… jewelry is not a ‘gate’ and does not
function as a ‘gate.’” Request at 2. Applicant argues
further, “The term ‘Charleston gate’ does not describe or
convey an immediate idea about the nature of jewelry;
rather, that term immediately evokes images of actual,
working, wrought-iron gates found throughout the City of
Charleston.” Id. In particular, applicant disagrees with
our reliance on In re MBNA America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d
1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (MONTANA SERIES and
PHILADELPHIA CARD held merely descriptive of credit card
services featuring credit cards depicting scenes or subject
matter of, or relating to the state of Montana or the city
of Philadelphia). Applicant asserts that this case is
distinguishable from the MBNA case.
Applicant reasserts the identical argument which it
raised and which we fully considered in our opinion of
December 22, 2008. In that opinion we stated, “Also,
applicant’s argument based on the definition of “gate”
misses the point. The Examining Attorney has not argued
that the goods are gates or function as gates. Rather,
when we view the CHARLESTON GATE mark as a whole and as
applied to the goods, which we must, it is clear that the
mark merely describes the designs which are the essential
feature of the goods, jewelry. In re Polo International
Ser No. 78836910
3
Inc., 51 USPQ2d at 1062.” December 22, 2008 Opinion at 8.
We find no error in that analysis, nor in our reliance on
the MBNA case or other authorities we cited.
In conclusion, we have considered all of applicant’s
arguments, and we find no error in our decision.
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied. The
decision, dated December 22, 2008, stands.