Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2000

No. 75109738re (T.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2000)

Paper No. 20
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 1/13/00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/109,738
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
W. R. Duke Taylor and George T. Schooff of Harness, Dickey
& Pierce, P.L.C. for Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.
Caryn L. Hines, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Hairston and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc., has requested
reconsideration of the Board’s September 23, 1999 decision
affirming the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the
mark EXPEDITER for “home mortgage loan programs which
provide expeditious credit approval without an underlying
security property, or expeditious credit approval with an
Ser No. 75/109,738
2
underlying security property” under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act.
Applicant has raised two arguments in its
reconsideration request. First, applicant argues that its
mark is entitled to registration because on the issue of
descriptiveness, all doubts should be resolved in favor of
publication. While applicant is correct in its statement
of the principle, the principle is not applicable here
because we have no doubts that the mark EXPEDITER is merely
descriptive of applicant’s services.
Second, applicant argues that its mark is entitled to
registration because the mark EXPEDITE SERVICES is
registered to a third party for banking services. It is
well settled that each case must be decided on its own set
of facts. We are not privy to the record in the file of
the cited registration and, moreover, the determination of
registrability of a particular mark by the Trademark
Examining Groups cannot control the result in another case
involving a different mark.
Ser No. 75/109,738
3
Decision: The request for reconsideration is denied.
R. F. Cissel
P. T. Hairston
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/109,738
4