M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency s.r.lv.Zenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. andZenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. v. M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency s.r.l. and M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency S.p.A.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2004

No. 91100786re (T.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2004)

Mailed: December 23, 2004
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______
M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency s.r.l.
v.
Zenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
_____
Opposition No. 91100786
to application Serial No. 74598262
filed on November 14, 1994
_____
Zenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
v.
M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency s.r.l. and
M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency S.p.a.
(joined as a party defendant)
_____
Opposition No. 91104047
to application Serial No. 75056059
filed on February 9, 1996
_____
Frank P. Presta and Sheryl L. Sharmach of Nixon & Vanderhye
P.C. for M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical Agency s.r.l.
Scott R. Hansen of Fulwider Patton Lee & Utecht, LLP for
Zenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
______
Motion for Reconsideration
______
Before Hairston, Walters and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91100786 and 9110407
2
The Board, in a decision issued June 29, 2004,
sustained the opposition of M.C.A. – Medical and Chemical
Agency s.r.l. (M.C.A) to Zenna Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.’s
(Zenna) application to register the mark TOP-GEL MCA for
“skin cleansing milk, skin cleansing crème, foundation
powder and face cream.” Additionally, the Board dismissed
Zenna’s opposition to M.C.A.’s application to register the
mark MCA and design for “skin care products, namely, skin
cream and soap.” The Board found that M.C.A. had priority
of use of the marks TOP-GEL and MCA.1
Zenna has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of
the Board’s decision. Zenna essentially asks that the Board
reweigh the evidence.
The purpose of reconsideration is to point out errors
made by the Board in making its decision, not to merely
reargue the case or ask the Board to reweigh the evidence as
Zenna has done. The basis for the Board’s decision is
clearly articulated therein and we do not find any error in
reaching that decision. Therefore, Zenna’s request for
reconsideration is denied and the decision of June 29, 2004
stands.
1 There was no dispute as to likelihood of confusion.