Pandol Bros., Inc.v.James Pandol

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

No. 92048691re (T.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
July 25, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Pandol Bros., Inc.
v.
James Pandol
_____

Cancellation No. 92048691
Reg. No. 3152058-PANDOL and
Reg. No. 3195027–PANDOL FAMILY FARMS
_____

Michael K. Bosworth and Maryam Imam of IPxLaw Group LLP for Pandol Bros.,
Inc.

D. Greg Durbin of McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Cartruth, LLP for
James Pandol.
_____

Before Mermelstein, Gorowitz, and Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On July 19, 2013, petitioner filed a petition for an augmented decision, in
which it requested that the Board amend its July 17, 2013, decision to include an
additional discussion of issues raised by petitioner in its arguments relating to
likelihood of confusion. Petitioner did not request reconsideration of the decision, in
which the Board sustained the petition on the ground of likelihood of confusion.
Cancellation No. 92048691

2

The Board believes the issued decision was appropriate for the record and the issues
presented by the case. In reaching our decision, all of the parties’ arguments were
carefully considered in light of the record evidence, although we did not find it
necessary to discuss all of them in our opinion. Nothing further needs to be said
about the evidence or the legal issues.
In view of the foregoing, petitioner’s request for an augmented decision is
DENIED.