Trek Bicycle Corporationv.TrekEase CorporationDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2009No. 91174085re (T.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2009) Copy Citation Mailed: April 29, 2009 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ Trek Bicycle Corporation v. TrekEase Corporation _____ Opposition No. 91174085 to application Serial No. 78847259 filed on March 27, 2006 _____ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Mary Catherine Merz of Merz & Associates, P.C. for Trek Bicycle Corporation. TrekEase Corporation pro se. ______ Before Quinn, Walters and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge: On March 5, 2009, applicant, TrekEase Corporation, filed a request for reconsideration from the February 26, 2009 decision sustaining the opposition and refusing registration. Applicant had filed an intent-to-use application on the Principal Register for the mark TrekEase, in standard character form, for “exercise machines; exercise treadmills,” in Class 28. THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Opposition No. 91174085 2 Trek Bicycle Corporation (“opposer”) filed a notice of opposition against the registration of applicant’s mark on the ground of priority of use and likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Specifically, opposer alleged that it has been continuously using the mark TREK for bicycles since at least as early as 1977; that its TREK mark has become famous; that opposer is the owner of numerous federally- registered TREK marks, including Registration No. 1168276 for the mark TREK for bicycles and bicycle frames; and that applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with opposer’s mark. Opposer also alleged that it has common law rights in its TREK mark in connection with exercise equipment and related services. In its request for reconsideration, applicant reargued its case addressing the Board’s analysis and findings of facts. In essence, the request for reconsideration was akin to a brief in opposition to the decision. However, the premise of a request for reconsideration is that, based on evidence of record and the prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching its decision. In other words, the request for reconsideration should be limited to a demonstration that based on the evidence of record and the applicable law, the Board’s ruling is in error and must be changed. See TBMP §§543 and 1219.01 (2nd ed. rev. 2004). Other than Opposition No. 91174085 3 disagreeing with the decision and rearguing its case, applicant did not specifically point out erroneous findings of fact or any misapplication of the law. After careful review of the evidence of record, the February 26, 2009 decision and applicant’s request for reconsideration, we find that the decision was correct and that we did not make any erroneous findings of fact or incorrectly apply the appropriate authorities. Decision: Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation