Trans Textiles Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2002

No. 76073572re (T.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2002)

Mailed: July 16, 2002
Paper No. 12
cl

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Trans Textiles Inc.
________

Serial No. 76/073,572
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Myron Amer, P.C. for Trans Textiles Inc.

Sonya B. Stephens, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Simms, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On July 5, 2002, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision issued June 12,
2002, wherein the Board affirmed the refusal to register
applicant’s mark VALENTINO CREATION (“CREATION”
disclaimed), for sports shirts, tee shirts, sweat shirts,
and pants, in view of eight registrations, all owned by
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/073,572
2
Valentino Globe B.V., for the marks VALENTINO, valentino,
and other marks containing the name VALENTINO or valentino,
for various items of clothing and related services, under
Section 2(d) of the Act.
Essentially, applicant argues that the Board’s
decision is incorrect because of nine third-party
registrations containing the name VALENTINO, such as
GIOVANNI VALENTINO, MARIO VALENTINO, VALENTINO GARAVANI V,
HUGO VALENTINO, RODOLFO VALENTINO and OSCAR VALENTINO,
demonstrating that this name is in common use in trademarks
for clothing.
As the Board indicated in its decision, the existence
of these third-party registrations apparently held by
different entities does not justify the registration of a
confusingly similar mark. It is well settled that third-
party registrations are not evidence of use of those marks,
or that the relevant consumers have been exposed to them.
See Olde Tyme Foods Inc. v. Roundy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 22
USPQ2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and AMF Inc. v. American
Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268,
269 (CCPA 1973). Compare also In re Nett Designs Inc., 236
F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ["Even if
some prior registrations had some characteristics similar
to [applicant's] application, the PTO's allowance of such
Serial No. 76/073,572
3
prior registrations does not bind the Board or this
court"]. Furthermore, unlike applicant’s mark, which
contains the name VALENTINO and the disclaimed descriptive
or generic word “CREATION,” those registered marks all
contain another name, helping to distinguish the source of
those goods or services. Suffice it to say that we see no
error in the decision complained of, and deny applicant’s
request for reconsideration.