Buck House, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2002

No. 76130954re (T.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2002)

Paper No. 13
RFC
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Buck House, L.L.C.
Request for Reconsideration
________
Serial No. 76/130,954
_______
Myron Amer, Esq. For Buck House, L.L.C.
Susan DuBois, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
(Craig Taylor, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Bottorff and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Cissel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On July 30, 2002, the Board affirmed the requirement
for acceptable specimens of applicant’s use of the mark it
seeks to register in connection with the services specified
in the application. Applicant timely filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board's decision on August 27, 2002.
Applicant's request appears to be grounded on the
contention that the Board may not have understood precisely
what the basis was for the Examining Attorney's finding
Ser No. 76/130,954
2
that the specimens submitted with the application do not
meet the requirements of the Trademark Act.
(Reconsideration Request, p. 3) Applicant argues that the
problem the Examining Attorney raised is that the
letterhead on the third specimen discussed in the Board's
opinion, the receipt from Fred Silberman for a mahogany
console which Silberman sold to applicant, was “not
generated by applicant." Applicant contends that “although
not in the hand of applicant, the BUCK HOUSE-embodied
letterhead is at the behest of applicant and, most
important, is critical because if not provided by Fred
Silberman (at applicant's behest) but by applicant's
stationer, it would be self-serving[sic] as to pedigree of
the object involved."
Careful consideration by the Board of applicant's
argument does not reveal any error in the Board's ruling.
As the Board pointed out at page five of its opinion, the
issue is whether the specimens show applicant's use of the
mark it seeks to register as a service mark, i.e., used by
applicant to identify the source of the services applicant
renders. We concluded that the specimens do not show use
of the mark by applicant, and went on to note that they do
not show use of the mark in the sale or advertising of
applicant's services, either.
Ser No. 76/130,954
3
Even applicant does not contend that the receipt from
Fred Silberman constitutes use of the mark by applicant.
Applicant does argue, however, that the party to whom
applicant will sell the console referenced in the Silberman
receipt “will undoubtedly not just display the described
antique console in mahogany etc., but will enhance the
display by providing a copy of the specimen to an admirer
thereof," so that Silberman's receipt will end up being
used to promote applicant's services.
This scenario is entirely speculative. We have no
evidence that such receipts are used in this manner in this
field of commerce. Moreover, even if this were industry
practice and the record established that as a fact, it
would not change the fact that the receipt in question
simply is not evidence of the use of the mark by applicant.
As has been repeatedly stated, in order to meet the
requirement of the Act for specimens of use of the mark,
even if the specimens refer to applicant, the specimens
must show applicant's use of the mark, rather than use by
someone other than applicant.
For this reason, the argument applicant raises in its
request for reconsideration is without merit. Accordingly,
the July 30, 2002 decision of the Board stands as issued.