Elegant Headwear Co., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2004

No. 75886511re (T.T.A.B. May. 13, 2004)

Paper No. 15
TJQ
Mailed:5/13/04
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Elegant Headwear Co., Inc.
________
Serial No. 75886511
_______
Request for Reconsideration
________
Myron Amer for Elegant Headwear Co., Inc.
Mary Rossman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Quinn and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board, in a decision dated March 17, 2004,
affirmed the refusal to register based on likelihood of
confusion. The requirement for additional information was
reversed. Lastly, the Board affirmed the requirement for a
disclaimer of the words “Stretch Gloves.”
THIS DECISION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 75886511
Applicant filed, on April 12, 2004, a disclaimer of
“Stretch Gloves,” and a request for reconsideration of the
Board’s decision on likelihood of confusion.1
Applicant’s disclaimer of the words “Stretch Gloves”
apart from the mark is accepted. Accordingly, that portion
of our March 17, 2004 decision dealing with the disclaimer
issue and our affirmance of the disclaimer requirement is
set aside.
With respect to likelihood of confusion, applicant
continues to stress its perceived notion as to “the unitary
nature of the word STRETCH to the word MAGIC,” and that the
Board failed to take into account that applicant’s gloves
are “one size fits all” and that the stretch gloves allow
for ambidextrous use.
We are not persuaded by applicant’s arguments. As set
forth in our decision, applicant’s “children’s gloves,
namely, in the nature of one size fits all consisting of
95% acrylic spandex” and registrant’s “fashion gloves for
youth” are closely related. We stand by our conclusion
that consumers are likely to believe that applicant’s MAGIC
STRETCH GLOVES identifies a stretch version of registrant’s
1 The submission of the document attached to the request for
reconsideration is untimely. Trademark Rule 2.142(d). We hasten to
add that even if considered, the document is not persuasive of a
different result in this case.
Ser. No. 75886511
gloves sold under the mark MAGIC GLOVE.
The request for reconsideration of the affirmance of
the likelihood of confusion refusal is denied.