Wireless Unified Network Systems Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2000

No. 74528633re (T.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2000)

Paper No. 25
ejs
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB FEB. 29, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Wireless Unified Network Systems Corporation
________
Serial No. 74/528,633
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
Stuart E. Beck for Wireless Unified Network Systems
Corporation
G. T. Glynn, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Seeherman and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On January 18, 2000 applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s December 16, 1999 decision
in which we affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal of
registration on the ground that the mark WIRELESS UNIFIED
NETWORK SYSTEMS CORPORATION is merely descriptive of
Ser. No. 74/528,633
2
“telecommunications services, namely, providing wireless
network communications services using a sub-orbital high
altitude communications network that is integrated with a
land based communications network.” With its request for
reconsideration applicant has filed a request to reopen the
appeal in order to enter a disclaimer of WIRELESS NETWORK
SYSTEMS.
Trademark Rule 2.142(g) provides, in pertinent part,
that an application which has been considered and decided
on appeal will not be reopened except for the entry of a
disclaimer under Section 6 of the Act. Because an
applicant may disclaim any matter in its mark without the
approval of the Examining Attorney, the request to reopen
the appeal for the purpose of submitting the disclaimer is
granted, and the disclaimer of WIRELESS NETWORK SYSTEMS has
been entered.
Applicant further requests that, with this disclaimer,
the Board either reconsider and modify its decision; or
remand the case to the Examining Attorney for further
examination in view of the disclaimer.1

1 With respect to its first alternative request applicant has
added, to the request that the Board reconsider and modify its
decision, the phrase “and/or schedule a rehearing.” Such
language appears to be superfluous, in that the Board’s
reconsideration of its decision in light of the disclaimer would
in effect be a rehearing.
Ser. No. 74/528,633
3
With respect to the second alternative, once an appeal
has been decided on appeal the Board’s authority under
Trademark Rule 2.142(g) is limited to the entry of a
disclaimer. Accordingly, applicant’s request to remand the
application to the Examining Attorney for further
examination is denied.
Applicant argues that the disclaimer of WIRELESS
NETWORK SYSTEMS places the application in condition for
publication. Applicant bases its position on its assertion
that during the oral hearing the Board raised the issue of
whether applicant would agree to disclaim WIRELESS NETWORK
SYSTEMS.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The fact that
a panel may, during an oral hearing, discuss the
possibility of a disclaimer does not represent a decision
by the Board that such a disclaimer would place the
application in condition for publication. We would also
point out that during the oral hearing applicant offered to
disclaim the words WIRELESS and NETWORK SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, not WIRELESS NETWORK SYSTEMS, and the
Examining Attorney rejected that suggestion, stating that
the proposed disclaimer would not avoid the problem of
descriptiveness of the mark as a whole.
Ser. No. 74/528,633
4
In any event, the Board, in its December 16, 1999
decision, found that the mark as a whole—WIRELESS UNIFIED
NETWORK SYSTEMS CORPORATION—was merely descriptive. Thus,
the disclaimer of WIRELESS NETWORK SYSTEMS offered by
applicant with its request for reconsideration does not
overcome the descriptiveness refusal. We would also add
that, if we had found the mark as a whole to be registrable
with a disclaimer of WIRELESS NETWORK SYSTEMS, we would, in
our decision, have afforded applicant an opportunity to
submit such a disclaimer.
The request for reconsideration and/or remand is
denied.
R. L. Simms
E. J. Seeherman
C. M. Bottorff
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board