David Adress

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2005

No. 76364167re (T.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2005)

Mailed: February 9, 2005

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re David Adress
________

Serial No. 76364167
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

David Adress, pro se.

Anne Madden, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103
(Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Chapman, Holtzman and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On December 13, 2004, the Board affirmed the Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register applicant’s mark PC WIZ for
“consulting services in the field of design, selection,
implementation and use of computer hardware and software
systems for others” under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act
in view of the registered marks, PC WIZARDS and the mark
shown below
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 76364167
2

both issued to PC Wizards, Inc., and both for the following
services:
“repair services for computer hardware,
namely, personal computer end network
installations and maintenance services”;
and

“computer consulting services, namely,
technical support services in the nature
of troubleshooting of computer hardware
and software problems via e-mail, by
telephone or in person; maintenance of
computer software; custom website design
and hosting for others.”

Applicant timely filed on January 7, 2005 a request
for reconsideration. See Trademark Rule 2.144.
Applicant essentially contends that (i) his mark and
the two cited marks differ in connotation and commercial
impression; and (ii) “the conditions of sales involves a
process by which a prospective purchaser gets to know and
judge the capabilities of his supplier by participating in
the specification of the work product. In the course of
developing this first-hand relationship with his supplier,
it is doubtful that the buyer would be confused with
respect to source.” (Request for reconsideration, p. 5.)
Applicant’s arguments are similar to arguments
previously made by applicant throughout the prosecution of
Ser. No. 76364167
3
his application, and these arguments were considered by the
Board as reflected in our final decision at pages 6-10.
Based on the evidence of record, we fully analyzed the
cited registrant’s and applicant’s marks in terms of, inter
alia, connotation and overall commercial impression, and
explained our conclusion thereon. We also fully analyzed
the “conditions of sale” factor. (There was scant evidence
of record on this factor. Applicant strongly argued this
factor, but he presented no corroborating evidence
thereof.) We explained that even if purchases of these
computer services were made with care and/or were made by
sophisticated consumers, when sold under such similar
marks, consumers would likely be confused as to the source
of the services.
We find no error in our December 13, 2004 decision.
Accordingly, applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.