Robert M. Pirnie

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2007

No. 76555048re (T.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2007)

Mailed:
June 4, 2007

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Robert M. Pirnie
________

Serial No. 76555048
_______

ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Theodore A. Breiner of Breiner & Breiner, L.L.C. for
Robert M. Pirnie.

Toni Y. Hickey, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
115 (Tomas V. Vlcek, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Grendel and Zervas, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

This case now comes up on applicant’s April 2, 2007
request for reconsideration of the Board’s March 2, 2007
decision affirming the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
refusal to register the mark CONFERENCE AMERICA (in
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 76555048
2
standard character form) for services recited in the
application (as amended) as:

promoting the use of telecommunication services
through the administration of an incentive award
program; managing a secure telecommunications
network for others, in Class 35;

telecommunications services, namely audio, video
and data teleconferencing; streaming of audio and
video material on the Internet, in Class 38; and

design and implementation of a secure
telecommunications network for others and support
services therefor, in Class 42.

The ground for the refusal affirmed on appeal was that
applicant’s mark is primarily geographically descriptive of
applicant’s recited services in all three classes.
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2).1
In its request for reconsideration, applicant
essentially repeats the arguments it previously made in its
briefs and at the oral hearing, arguments which the Board
found unpersuasive and still finds unpersuasive. For the
reasons set forth at length in our March 2, 2007 decision,
we remain of the opinion that applicant’s mark is primarily
geographically descriptive of the recited services in all
three classes. Contrary to applicant’s repeated argument,

1 The Board’s March 2, 2007 decision also affirmed the Trademark
Examining Attorney’s requirement for an acceptable recitation of
services in Class 35. Applicant has not requested
reconsideration on that issue.
Ser. No. 76555048
3
the evidence of record2 does not suffice to raise any doubt
as to the registrability of applicant’s mark.
Having discerned no error in our previous decision, we
deny applicant’s request for reconsideration.

2 The additional evidence applicant has submitted with its
request for reconsideration is manifestly untimely and has been
given no consideration.