Mintek Corporationv.Samuel Bouter

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2008

No. 91167540re (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2008)

Mailed:
March 31, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
______

Mintek Corporation
v.
Samuel Bouter dba Minatek Solutions
_____

Opposition No. 91167540
to application Serial No. 78490643
filed on September 28, 2004
_____

On Request for Reconsideration
_____

Thomas E. Toner of Smith & Hopen, P.A. for Mintek
Corporation.

Samuel Bouter dba Minatek Solutions, pro se.
______

Before Grendel, Drost and Zervas, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On December 17, 2007, the Board issued its decision in
the above-captioned opposition proceeding, sustaining
opposer’s Section 2(d) ground of opposition to registration
of applicant’s mark. On February 13, 2008, applicant filed
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91167540
2
a paper with the Board captioned “APPEAL,” in which
applicant states:
Applicant hereby requests that the board and
opposer review the possibility of a simultaneous
registration whereby both the applicant and
opposer may use, under agreed guidelines, the
trademark for the respective businesses.
Please note that the opposer states they have
clients throughout North America. Under such an
agreement, the applicant would grant usage of the
opposer’s mark in Canada.

The final decision of the Board in an opposition
proceeding may be appealed only to the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit or to a U.S. District Court with
appropriate jurisdiction. See Trademark Act Sections
21(a)(1) and 21 (b)(1), 15 U.S.C. §§1071(a)(1) and
1071(b)(1); Trademark Rule 2.145, 37 C.F.R. §2.145; TBMP
§901.01. The Board does not entertain “appeals” of its own
final decisions.
In view thereof, and despite applicant’s captioning of
its paper as an “appeal,” we deem applicant’s February 13,
2008 filing to be a request for reconsideration of the
Board’s December 17, 2007 final decision in this case,
pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.129(c), 37 C.F.R. §2.129(c).
See TBMP §543.
A request for reconsideration of the Board’s final
decision must be filed within thirty days of the date of
issuance of the final decision. See id. Applicant’s
February 13, 2008 request for reconsideration was filed more
Opposition No. 91167540
3
than thirty days after the Board’s December 17, 2007 final
decision, and it therefore is untimely and will not be
considered.1
The request for reconsideration is denied. The Board’s
December 17, 2007 final decision stands.

1 We note that even if applicant’s request had been timely, it
would have been denied. Essentially, applicant appears to be
seeking a geographically limited concurrent use registration.
See Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). However, the
Board will consider and determine geographical limitations only
in the context of a concurrent use proceeding. See Trademark
Rule 2.133(c), 37 C.F.R. §2.133(c). If applicant seeks a
concurrent use registration, applicant must file a new concurrent
use application which complies with the eligibility and
procedural requirements for such an application. See TMEP §1207;
see also Trademark Rule 2.99, 37 C.F.R. §2.99, and TBMP Chapter
1100. Additionally, with respect to the reference in applicant’s
filing to use of the mark in Canada, applicant is advised that
the Office does not determine rights in a mark outside the United
States, in a concurrent use proceeding or otherwise.