World Kanreikai Karate, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2010

No. 78448346re (T.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2010)

Mailed: January 13, 2010

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re World Kanreikai Karate, LLC
________

Serial No. 78448346
_______

Reconsideration
_______

George A. Coury of Bachman & LaPointe for World Kanreikai
Karate, LLC.

Doritt Carroll, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
116 (Robert Lorenzo, Acting Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Walters, Holtzman and Mermelstein, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On October 1, 2009, the Board issued a final decision
in the above-captioned proceeding. In this decision, we
affirmed on appeal the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final
refusal to register applicant’s mark on the ground that the
mark shown in the drawing is not a substantially exact
representation of the mark as actually used, as shown on
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 78448346
2
the specimens of use. See Trademark Rule 2.56(a), 37 CFR
§2.56(a).
On November 2, 2009, applicant filed a timely request
for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. Pointing to
the Board’s acknowledgement that the determination of
whether the drawing in the application is a substantially
exact representation of the mark as used is subjective,
applicant contends that the Board failed to consider the
evidence of record that allegedly demonstrates that “WORLD
is primarily geographically descriptive or generic.”
(Request for Reconsideration, p. 2.) Applicant states that
it “has facilities which offer the subject services under
the subject mark in the [United States], Canada, Poland and
Israel. These services are therefore offered on a
worldwide basis.” (Id.) Applicant asserts that it stated
this information during both prosecution and appeal.
Applicant also asserts that the record contains evidence of
“other common uses of the term WORLD which show descriptive
and generic common use of the term.” (Id.)
It has often been stated that the premise underlying a
request for rehearing, reconsideration, or modification
under Trademark Rule 2.129(c) is that, based on the
evidence of record and the prevailing authorities, the
Board erred in reaching the decision it issued. See TBMP
Ser. No. 78448346
3
§544 (2d ed. rev. 2004) and the authorities cited therein.
The request may not be used to introduce additional
evidence,

nor should it be devoted simply to a reargument of
the points presented in the requesting party's brief on the
case. See Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 201 USPQ 126
(TTAB 1978). Rather, the request normally should be
limited to a demonstration that, based on the evidence
properly of record and the applicable law, the Board's
ruling is in error and requires appropriate change. See,
for example, Steiger Tractor Inc. v. Steiner Corp., 221
USPQ 165 (TTAB 1984), different results reached on reh’g, 3
USPQ2d 1708 (TTAB 1984). Cf. In re Kroger Co., 177 USPQ
715, 717 (TTAB 1973).
Contrary to applicant’s contention, it points to no
error on the part of the Board in our decision of October
1, 2009, on final hearing. Rather, opposer disagrees with
the result reached therein, and reargues points previously
raised in support of its contention that we should consider
WORLD KENREIKAI KARATE to be a unitary mark that is a
substantially exact representation of applicant’s mark as
used on its specimens of use. The Board considered
applicant’s statements regarding the scope of its services
under the mark and its mere allegations about third-party
uses of WORLD, found these statements insufficient, and
Ser. No. 78448346
4
concluded that “there is no evidence that the term WORLD is
primarily geographically descriptive or generic.” (Board
Decision, p. 5.) Moreover, the Board specifically noted
that whether or not the term “WORLD may be a weak term in a
trademark … does not lead us to the conclusion that [WORLD]
is not an integral part of the mark herein as that mark is
used on the specimens of record.” (Id.) As a result, we
remain of the opinion that our October 1, 2009, decision is
correct.
Accordingly, opposer’s request for reconsideration is
denied.