Decision Analyst, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2005

No. 78139723re (T.T.A.B. May. 10, 2005)

Mailed: May 10, 2005
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Decision Analyst, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78139723
_______

Request for Reconsideration

Larry E. Meadows of Meadows & Associates, L.L.P. for
Decision Analyst, Inc.

Linda E. Blohm, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Hairston and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Board, on February 25, 2005, issued a decision
affirming the refusal to register applicant’s mark ICION on
the ground that applicant failed to submit acceptable
specimens showing actual use of the mark with the computer
programming services recited in the application. In
addition, the Board held as untimely and declined to
consider the additional specimens and proposed amendment to
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 78139723
2
the recitation of services submitted by applicant with its
appeal brief. The Board pointed out that when an applicant
wants the examining attorney to consider additional
evidence after the filing of an appeal, the proper
procedure is to file a request for remand supported by a
showing of good cause.
On March 25, 2005 applicant filed a request for
reconsideration wherein it requests that the Board remand
the application to the examining attorney for consideration
of the additional specimens and proposed amendment to the
recitation of services.
Trademark Rule 2.142(g) provides that an application
which has been considered and decided on appeal will not be
reopened except in circumstances not applicable in this
case. Thus, the Board will not remand the application to
the examining attorney. A request for remand should have
been filed at the time applicant submitted the additional
specimens and proposed amendment to the recitation of
services.1 See TMBP §1205.01 (2nd ed. rev 2004).
Under the circumstances, applicant’s request for
reconsideration is denied.

1 As noted in our decision, applicant had previously proposed the
identical amendment during prosecution of the application, and
the examining attorney rejected it.