Trumpf GmbH + Co. KG

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2008

No. 79021358re (T.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2008)

Mailed: April 15, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Trumpf GmbH + Co. KG
________

Serial No. 79021358

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Peter L. Costas of Pepe & Hazard LLP for Trumpf GmbH + Co.
KG.

Daniel S. Brody, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
115 (Tomas V. Vlcek, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hohein, Cataldo and Ritchie de Larena,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On March 25, 2008, the Board issued a final decision
in the above-captioned appeal. In our decision, we
affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal to register under
Trademark Act Section 2(d).
On March 26, 2008, applicant timely filed a request
for reconsideration of that decision. See Trademark Rule
2.129(c). In its request for reconsideration, applicant
asserts that on November 26, 2007, it timely filed a
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 79021358
2
request for an oral hearing in this case. Applicant
further asserts that it received a postcard receipt for its
request for an oral hearing, but that no oral hearing was
scheduled. Applicant requests reconsideration so that it
may be afforded an opportunity to present arguments on the
matter under appeal at oral hearing. In support of its
contentions, applicant encloses a copy of its November 26,
2007 request for an oral hearing along with a certificate
of mailing by Federal Express service, a printed copy of
the Federal Express mailing label dated November 27, 2007,
and a copy of the return receipt therefor.
A review of United States Patent and Trademark Office
records indicates that neither the Board nor the Trademark
Examining Operation received applicant’s request for an
oral hearing. Based upon the evidence made of record with
its request for reconsideration, it appears nonetheless
that applicant timely filed such request, which was due by
December 6, 2007.1

1 We observe, however, that the “CERTIFICATE OF FEDERAL EXPRESS
MAILING” which apparently accompanied applicant’s request for an
oral hearing certifies in relevant part that such request “is
being deposited with Federal Express service under 37 CFR 1.10 on
... [November 26, 2007] and is addressed to the Trademark
Assistance Center, Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55, 600
Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22313.” Applicant is advised
that Patent Rule 1.10 (37 CFR §1.10) is not applicable to
trademark cases. Instead, the governing rules of practice are
Trademark Rule 2.190 (37 CFR §2.90) for mailing addresses,
including hand delivery of a document, and either Trademark Rules
Ser No. 79021358
3
Accordingly, our March 25, 2008 decision is hereby
vacated; and an oral hearing will be scheduled in due
course.

2.197 (37 CFR §2.97) or 2.198 (37 CFR §2.98) for, at applicant’s
discretion, mailing of a paper by certificate of mailing or
filing a document by “Express Mail.” In addition, it is pointed
out that applicant may also avoid the inadvertencies inherent
with its “CERTIFICATE OF FEDERAL EXPRESS MAILING” technique by
filing documents in Board proceedings by means of the Board’s
Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).