Luxuria, s.r.o.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2011

No. 79055664re (T.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2011)

Mailed:
November 16, 2011

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Luxuria, s.r.o.
________

Serial No. 79055664
_______

David L. May of Nixon Peabody LLP for Luxuria, s.r.o.

Charisma Hampton, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
112 (Angela Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Lykos and Shaw, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On September 19, 2011, the Board affirmed the
examining attorney’s refusal of registration of applicant
Luxuria, s.r.o.’s mark. On October 18, 2011, applicant
filed a request for reconsideration. The request for
reconsideration consists of one paragraph, as follows:
Applicant LUXURIA, s.r.o. respectfully submits
this Request for Reconsideration after the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision
making final the refusal to register the
trademark shown in U.S. Trademark Serial No.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser No. 79055664
2
79/055,664 under Section 2(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that
Applicant’s Mark “consists of or comprises
immoral or scandalous matter.” Applicant hereby
requests reconsideration of the Board’s decision
dated September 19, 2011 in the above-captioned
application. Applicant will submit its reply
brief within the time required by the rules.

Trademark Rule 2.144 provides that any request for
rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within one month
from the date of the decision. Therefore, applicant’s
filing of its request for reconsideration on October 18,
2011, within one month of the September 19, 2011 decision,
was timely. We assume that its reference to a “reply
brief” was intended to mean a brief in support of its
request for reconsideration. Such a paper would have had
to be filed by October 19, 2011, as required by the rule.
However, applicant did not file any further paper
explaining the basis for its request for reconsideration.
Because applicant has not provided any reason for
requesting reconsideration of the Board’s September 19,
2011 decision, or pointed to any error of fact or law in
that decision, the request for reconsideration is denied.