Joseph Tsiyoni d/b/a Shairon Int’l Trade

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2013

No. 85737891re (T.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
December 3, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Joseph Tsiyoni d/b/a Shairon Int’l Trade
_____

Serial No. 85737891
_____

Request for Reconsideration

Joseph Tsiyoni, pro se.

Robin Mittler, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117 (Brett J. Golden,
Managing Attorney).
_____

Before Grendel, Greenbaum and Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Joseph Tsiyoni d/b/a Shairon Int’l Trade (“applicant”) seeks registration of
the standard character mark PRIDER for goods ultimately identified as “Motor
standing scooters, Motorized personal mobility scooters, personal mobility device
namely standing motor scooters for multi purposes, for persons who can stand and
drive” in International Class 12.1

1 Asserting February 10, 2009, as the date of first use, and September 21, 2012, as the date
of first use in commerce.
Serial No. 85737891
2

The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), on the ground that applicant’s mark, when
applied to applicant’s goods, so resembles the following previously registered
standard character marks, all owned by Pride Mobility Products Corporation, as to
be likely to cause confusion:
PRIDE for “electrically powered scooter vehicles for use by
elderly, infirm or disabled persons” in International Class
12;2
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS (the words “Mobility
Products” disclaimed) for “lift chairs for use primarily by
elderly, disabled and infirm persons, electrically powered
scooter vehicles, powerchairs and wheelchairs for use
primarily by elderly, disabled and infirm persons” in
International Class 12;3
PRIDE for “electrically driven mid-wheel drive powered
wheelchairs” in International Class 12;4
PRIDE--THE FIRST NAME IN SCOOTERS for
“Electrically powered scooter vehicles for use primarily by
elderly, disabled and infirm persons” in International
Class 12;5
PRIDE for “Pre-recorded audio visual playback media,
namely, compact discs, digital video discs and video tapes
encoded with promotional and instructional information
concerning sales, service, maintenance and/or use of
electrically powered scooter vehicles, power chairs,
wheelchairs, lift chairs and accessories for the same, all
such vehicles and chairs being for use by elderly,
infirmed, handicapped and/or disabled persons” in
International Class 9;6 and

2 Reg. No. 1790294. Renewed.
3 Reg. No. 2476247. Renewed.
4 Reg. No. 2484480. Renewed.
5 Reg. No. 2942281. Section 8 & 15 combined declaration accepted and acknowledged.
6 Reg. No. 2996410. Section 8 & 15 combined declaration accepted and acknowledged.
Serial No. 85737891
3

PRIDE for “Electrical, mechanical and hydraulic lifts for
personal mobility vehicles, personal mobility vehicle
accessories, and equipment, including repair and
replacement parts therefor; ramps for use in loading and
unloading personal mobility vehicles onto and off of
automobiles, vans and trucks” in International Class 12.7
On November 14, 2013, the Board issued a final decision (“Final Decision”)
affirming the refusal to register, and on November 21, 2013, applicant filed a
request for reconsideration.
Requests for reconsideration, as set forth in Trademark Rule 2.127(b), may
only be granted when the movant establishes that, based on the information before
the Board when the assertedly objectionable decision issued, the Board erred. A
request for reconsideration is not to be used as a vehicle to reargue points raised in
a brief on the merits, yet that is what applicant has done.
Upon further review, the Board is not persuaded that there was any error in
the Final Decision. For the reasons discussed in the Final Decision, we correctly
found that applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical or otherwise
related accessibility and mobility devices, and that they are offered in the same
channels of trade to the same potential customers. Further, for the reasons
discussed in the Final Decision, we correctly found that when applicant’s mark and
registrant’s marks are compared in their entireties, they are sufficiently similar in
appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression that, if used in
connection with related goods, confusion would be likely to occur. In making these
findings, we properly and necessarily considered all of the arguments and evidence

7 Reg. No. 4219174, issued October 2, 2012.
Serial No. 85737891
4

properly submitted in support of, or in opposition to, the refusal to register
applicant’s mark, even if we did not specifically mention every argument or piece of
evidence in the Final Decision. Applicant’s reargument of previously raised issues
does not compel a different result. We will not grant a request for reconsideration
simply because applicant disagrees with the Final Decision.
Decision: For all of these reasons, applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.