Pro Select, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2003

No. 76092271re (T.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2003)

Mailed: August 19, 2003
Paper No. 14
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Pro Select, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/092,271
_______
Request for Reconsideration
Marshall A. Burmeister for Pro Select, Inc.
Dawn J. Feldman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
111 (Craig D. Taylor, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Hairston and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On June 23, 2003 applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision issued March 4,
2003, wherein the Board affirmed the refusal to register
applicant’s mark TRIUMPH for golf clubs and golf equipment
in view of a registration for the mark TRIUMPH for tennis
rackets, under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76/092,271
2
Applicant argues that the Board’s decision is
incorrect because applicant and registrant’s goods are
different, the channels of trade are different, the
purchasers of the goods are sophisticated, and the mark
TRIUMPH is weak and therefore entitled to a limited scope
of protection.
The purpose of reconsideration is to point out errors
made by the Board in reaching its decision, not to merely
reargue the case as applicant has done. We addressed each
of applicant’s contentions in our decision and we do not
find any error in our determination thereof.
In addition, applicant continues to maintain that it
is a significant factor in this case that its vice-
president Matthew Adams has not encountered TRIUMPH tennis
rackets at any trade shows he has attended or in any
sporting goods literature he has read. Although we
addressed Mr. Adams’ declaration in our decision, we should
add that his experience in this regard is hardly surprising
and certainly not persuasive of a different result in this
case. Mr. Adams stated in his declaration that most of the
trade shows he attends are limited to golf equipment and
the type of sporting goods literature he reads are golfing
magazines. One would not normally expect to find
manufacturers of tennis racquets exhibiting at golf
Ser No. 76/092,271
3
equipment trade shows. Nor would one normally expect to
find advertisements for tennis racquets in golfing
magazines. In any event, as we indicated in our decision
(p. 5), applicant’s goods are not limited to golf pro
shops, and thus we must assume that they may be sold by
sporting goods retailers and mass merchandisers.
Inasmuch as we see no error in our decision, the
request for reconsideration is denied and the decision
affirming the refusal to register under Section 2(d) of the
Act remains as issued.