Pacific Telecard

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 7, 2002

No. 75845318re (T.T.A.B. May. 7, 2002)

Paper No. 15
BAC
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Pacific Telecard
________
Serial No. 75/845,318
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
James C. Wray, Esq. for Pacific Telecard.
Ellen J.G. Perkins, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On March 27, 2002 the Board affirmed the Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register applicant’s mark, PACIFIC
PHONE CARD, under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant filed on April 26, 2002 a request for
reconsideration.
Applicant’s two-sentence request reads in its entirety
as follows:
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 75/845318
2
Kindly reconsider the decision dated
March 27, 2002.
The decision does not take into
account that the myriad uses of Pacific
means that Pacific by itself has no status,
and the fact that Pacific Bell and Pacific
Phone are distinct in appearance, sound and
meaning.
Applicant’s mark, PACIFIC PHONE CARD (with “phone
card” disclaimed), is for “telephone calling cards, not
magnetically encoded.” The Examining Attorney had cited
five registrations, each including the word PACIFIC, one
covering telephone communication and consulting services
and the other four covering telephone calling card
services, and all owned by the same entity.
In affirming the refusal to register, the Board
carefully considered the similarities/dissimilarities of
applicant’s marks vis-a-vis each of the cited marks and we
concluded, after thorough analysis, that (i) applicant’s
mark PACIFIC PHONE CARD and one cited mark PACIFIC
TELEPHONE (“telephone” disclaimed) are similar in sound,
appearance, connotation and commercial impression (Board
decision, pp. 7-8); and (ii) applicant’s mark and the other
four cited marks (all commencing with the words PACIFIC
BELL), are similar in sound and connotation, creating a
similar commercial impression. (Board decision, pp. 8-13).
Ser. No. 75/845318
3
To whatever extent applicant is again arguing that the
term PACIFIC is weak due to the number and nature of
similar marks in use for related goods and/or services, we
reiterate that there is no evidence of record on this
point. (Board decision, p. 12.)
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.