Glenn A. Bjorkmanv.American Needle

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2008

No. 91169308re (T.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2008)

Mailed: October 10, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Glenn A. Bjorkman
v.
American Needle
_____

Opposition No. 91169308
to application Serial No. 76609576
filed on August 30, 2004
_____

Request for Reconsideration
_____

Glenn A. Bjorkman, pro se.

John S. Mortimer of Wood, Phillips, Katz, Clark & Mortimer
for American Needle.
______

Before Walsh, Bergsman, and Wellington,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On July 14, 2008, opposer requested reconsideration of
the Board's June 2, 2008 decision, in which the Board
dismissed opposer’s opposition to the involved application
in its entirety. Inasmuch as this motion lacks proof of
service on applicant, as required by Trademark Rule
2.119(a), it has not been properly submitted and normally
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91169308
2
would not be given consideration by the Board.
Nevertheless, we exercise our discretion to review the
request for reconsideration and, on the merits, find that it
is not well taken.
It has often been stated that the premise underlying a
request for reconsideration under Trademark Rule 2.129(c) is
that, based on the evidence of record and the prevailing
authorities, the Board erred in reaching the decision it
issued. See TBMP §544 (2d ed. rev. 2004) and the
authorities cited therein. The request may not be used to
introduce additional evidence, nor should it be devoted
simply to a reargument of the points presented in the
requesting party's brief on the case. See Amoco Oil Co. v.
Amerco, Inc., 201 USPQ 126 (TTAB 1978). Rather, the request
normally should be limited to a demonstration that, based on
the evidence properly of record and the applicable law, the
Board's ruling is in error and requires appropriate change.
See, for example, Steiger Tractor Inc. v. Steiner Corp., 221
USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984), different results reached on reh'g, 3
USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984). Cf. In re Kroger Co., 177 USPQ
715, 717 (TTAB 1973).
By way of the request for reconsideration, opposer is
attempting to do now what he failed to do during his
testimony period, that is, to submit evidence regarding his
pleaded registrations and use of the marks. Opposer states
Opposition No. 91169308
3
that “[a]n inquiry into the USPTO database will show that I
am the owner [of the pleaded registrations]” and certain
“documents of samples of use of [opposer’s pleaded marks] on
products submitted earlier, should be given consideration as
evidence since they were sent to both the applicant and the
TTAB before the trial.” While these statements may or may
not be true, the simple fact is that the referenced
materials were not properly introduced into the record.
Accordingly, the materials were not considered in our June
2, 2008 decision and may not be considered now.
In view thereof, applicant’s request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision is denied, and the
decision of June 2, 2008 stands.