U. S. Lock Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2002

No. 75717463re (T.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2002)

1/8/02 Paper No. 14
RLS/cl

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re U.S. Lock Corp.
________

Serial No. 75/717,463
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Myron Amer of Myron Amer, P.C. for U.S. Lock Corp.

Richard R. Alves, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney I. Moskowitz, Managing Attorney)
_______

Before Simms, Walters and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On October 15, 2001, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision issued September
28, 2001, wherein the Board affirmed the Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register applicant’s mark SECURITY
PRO for metal mechanical locks on the basis of likelihood
of confusion. Applicant argues that our decision was not
based on evidence in the record, because the Examining
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Attorney in his brief did not specifically refer to each of
the excerpts quoted in the Board’s decision.
Suffice it to say that all of the excerpts noted in
the Board’s decision were made of record by the Examining
Attorney with his final refusal issued June 30, 2000. In
his appeal brief the Examining Attorney specifically
referred to the collected excerpts, obtained as a result of
a Nexis search and attached to his final refusal (the same
copies were also attached to his appeal brief), which the
Examining Attorney stated “indicate that metal locks and
security alarm systems are frequently sold under the same
mark.” In any event and, contrary to applicant’s argument,
there is no requirement in the Trademark Rules or in
trademark practice that an Examining Attorney specifically
mention each and every item of record in his appeal brief
in order for them to be considered by the Board. Once
evidence is placed in the record, it may be referred to by
the Examining Attorney, applicant or the Board for whatever
probative value it may have.
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.