BAE SYSTEMS Information and Electronic Integration, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2007

No. 76512472re (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 2007)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B.

Mailed:
May 11, 2007

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re BAE SYSTEMS Information and
Electronic Integration, Inc.

RECONSIDERATION
________

Serial No. 76512472
_______

Daniel J. Long of BAE SYSTEMS Information and Electronic
Integration, Inc.

Tracy Cross, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109
(Dan Vavonese, Managing Attorney)
_______

Before Walters, Holtzman, and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On April 23, 2007, applicant, BAE SYSTEMS Information
and Electronic Integration, Inc., filed a “Request For
Remand To Examining Attorney.” By this “Request” applicant
seeks to amend its application to the Supplemental
Register. We treat applicant’s “Request For Remand” as a
request for reconsideration filed pursuant to Trademark
Rule 2.144, 37 CFR §2.144.
Serial No. 76512472
2
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied
because it is not timely and because an amendment to the
Supplemental Register is not the proper subject matter for
a request for reconsideration from a decision in an ex
parte appeal.
On February 23, 2007, the Board issued a decision
affirming the refusal to register applicant’s mark on the
ground that it is merely descriptive pursuant to Section
2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).
Applicant was allowed one month, or until March 23, 2007,
to file a request for reconsideration. Trademark Rule
2.144, 37 CFR §2.144. Because applicant filed its request
for reconsideration on April 23, 2007, it was thirty (30)
days late.
As indicated supra, applicant seeks to amend its
application to the Supplemental Register. After a decision
has been rendered in a ex parte appeal to the refusal to
register an application, prosecution of the application
will not be reopened except for the entry of a disclaimer
pursuant to Section 6 of the Lanham Act. Trademark Rule
2.142(g), 37 CFR §2.142(g). See also TBMP §1218 n.258 (2nd
ed. rev. 2004); TMEP §1501.06 (4th ed. 2005). The Trademark
office has consistently refused to allow an applicant to
amend its application to the Supplemental Register after an
Serial No. 76512472
3
appeal has been decided because the applicant has elected a
course of action and has had an adjudication of its
application. In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d
1047 n.2 (TTAB 2002); In re Taverniti, SARL, 225 USPQ 1263,
1264 n.3 (TTAB 1985); Ex parte Simoniz Co., 161 USPQ 365
(Comm’r. Pats. 1969).
Decision: Applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.