Robert Ameeti

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2006

No. 78114391re (T.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2006)

Mailed:
September 13, 2006

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Robert Ameeti
________

Serial No. 78114391
_______

On Request for Reconsideration
_______

John J. Connors of Connors & Associates for Robert Ameeti.

Georgia Ann Carty Ellis, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 108 (Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Rogers and Zervas,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Rogers, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Robert Ameeti applied to register FASTRAK, in standard
character form, as a mark on the Principal Register for
services eventually identified, following amendment, as
"tracking services for retrieval of encoded products,
excluding railcars in transit," in International Class 45.
Registration was refused by the examining attorney, in view
This Opinion is Not
Citable as Precedent of
the TTAB
Ser No. 78114391
2
of the prior registration of FAST-TRAX for "services for
computerized tracking and tracing of railcars in transit,"
in International Class 35 (Registration No. 2727717). We
affirmed the final refusal of registration and applicant
now seeks reconsideration of that refusal, because
applicant has now obtained the consent of the owner of the
cited registration to registration of applicant's mark.
In essence, applicant seeks to have the adverse
decision it obtained on appeal vacated, and to have the
application reopened following appeal, so that the
examining attorney can consider the consent agreement. In
support of its request, applicant relies on In re Digequip
Security Industries, Inc., 225 USPQ 230 (TTAB 1984).1 That
case, however, is distinguishable from the case at hand.
Digequip did not involve a consent agreement at all and did
not involve any newly obtained evidence. Rather, Digequip
involved a situation in which the applicant convinced the
panel that rendered the decision on appeal that it had
misunderstood the facts, as they existed at the time of the
appeal.

1 Applicant timely filed a request for reconsideration within one
month of the issuance of the decision affirming the examining
attorney's refusal of registration. Approximately two weeks
later, applicant filed a supplement, expanding on the initial
request. We have exercised our discretion to consider the
supplement.
Ser No. 78114391
3
The Digequip panel agreed that the examining
attorney's decision to refuse registration was "based on an
imperfect understanding of the facts," vacated its decision
and instructed the examining attorney to withdraw the
finality of the refusal of registration, so that further
examination of the true facts of the case could be made.
Id. While Digequip may be read as contemplating, after
vacation and remand, submission of additional evidence, it
cannot be read to suggest that the applicant therein was
being granted permission to submit evidence of new facts or
facts that arose subsequent to the prosecution of the
application and appeal. In the case at hand, applicant
proposed to do exactly that, i.e., submit new evidence
gathered after the conclusion of the appeal.
Once the Board has heard and decided a case on appeal,
reopening of the application may be possible for entry of a
disclaimer (typically when the appeal involved the
propriety of the requirement that a disclaimer be
submitted), or if a petition to the Commissioner is
granted. See discussion in TBMP Section 1218. Obtaining a
consent from the owner of a cited registration after
issuance of decision in an appeal has been found not to
provide sufficient cause for reopening of an application
Ser No. 78114391
4
via such a petition. See In re Mack Trucks, Inc., 189 USPQ
642, 643 (Comm'r 1976).
The request for reconsideration is denied.