Grow Co., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2005

No. 76487502re (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 2005)

Mailed:
May 11, 2005

Paper No. 13
Grendel

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Grow Company, Inc.
________

Serial No. 76487502
_______

On Request for Reconsideration

_______

Before Walters, Grendel1 and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Board’s
July 22, 2004 decision affirming the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register applicant’s mark.2
The Board acknowledges that applicant in fact filed a
reply brief, and we have considered that brief in reaching
our decision herein. However, we are not persuaded by

1 Formerly known as Bottorff.

2 The Board apologizes for the delay in addressing this matter.

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 76487502
2
applicant’s arguments in its request for reconsideration
that our original decision was in error.
The mark as it appears on the specimen of record is
not a substantially exact representation of the mark as it
is depicted (in typed form) on the application drawing
page, and it therefore is not acceptable. Trademark Rule
2.51(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)(1). Moreover, we remain of
the opinion, as expressed in footnote 1 of our decision,
that applicant’s request to amend the mark from its current
typed form to the highly stylized mark appearing on the
specimen cannot be approved, because such amendment would
result in a material alteration of the mark in violation of
Trademark Rule 2.72(a)(2), 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2). Nothing
in our decision supports a contrary conclusion, including
the language on page 6 of the decision cited by applicant
in its request for reconsideration.
Decision: The request for reconsideration is denied.