Huck Int'l., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2002

No. 75650428re (T.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2002)

Mailed: 24 May 2002
Paper No. 22
AD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Huck International, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/650,428
________

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Joseph R. Papp of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. for Huck
International, Inc.

David H. Stine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Simms, Walters and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On January 16, 2002, the Board affirmed the refusal to
register applicant’s mark AL on the ground that the mark
was merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act. On February 15, 2002, applicant requested
reconsideration and a remand to the examining attorney to
modify the identification of goods, to provide verification
of the sophisticated nature of the purchasers, and to
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 75/650,428
2
provide verification that these sophisticated purchasers do
not view AL as symbolizing aluminum. Request for
Reconsideration at 7. Applicant also was willing to submit
evidence that some of its fasteners do not contain
aluminum. On April 5, 2002, the Board denied applicant’s
request for reconsideration because the Board is without
authority to remand the case for further prosecution except
to enter a disclaimer.
Applicant has submitted a second request for
reconsideration1 in which it offers to submit a disclaimer.
Submission of disclaimer is not a means to reopen the
prosecution of an application that has already been
adjudicated. As discussed in our previous decision:
Entirely aside from the merits of appellant's request,
the Board has no jurisdiction under the Trademark
Rules of Practice to remand an application to the
Examining Attorney after a final decision has been
rendered where the purpose of such remand would be to
reopen the application.

In re Johanna Farms, Inc., 223 USPQ 459, 460 (TTAB 1984).
Clearly, the purpose of this remand would be to reopen
prosecution. Applicant’s disclaimer would not place the

1 Trademark Rule § 2.144 provides that “[a]ny request for
rehearing or reconsideration, or modification of the decision
must be filed within one month of the decision.” Inasmuch as
applicant’s second request for reconsideration was filed more
than one month after the decision on ex parte appeal, it is
untimely.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
3
application in condition for allowance. See Decision dated
January 16, 2002, pp. 4-5, n.3.
We have considered applicant’s second request for
reconsideration and its request for a remand, and, even if
it was timely submitted, we find no basis to change our
decision or to remand the case to the examining attorney.
Therefore, applicant’s second request for reconsideration
and remand is denied.