Mica Lamp Co.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2001

No. 75163498 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2001)

1/9/01
Paper No. 21
rls/em
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Mica Lamp Company
________
Serial No. 75/163,498
_______
John W. Hazard, Jr. of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean for Mica
Lamp Company.
David H. Stine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Walters and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Mica Lamp Company (applicant), a California
corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register the asserted mark
MICA LAMPS for electric lamps and lamp fixtures, namely,
lamp shades and lamp reflectors.1 The Examining Attorney
has refused registration on the Principal Register and on
1 Application Serial No. 75/163,498, filed September 10, 1996,
based upon allegations of use and use in commerce since January
1, 1992.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/163,498
2
the Supplemental Register on the basis that applicant’s
mark is generic for applicant’s goods.2 Applicant and the
Examining Attorney have submitted briefs but no oral
hearing was requested.3
On December 6, 2000, the Board issued an opinion and
decision in connection with another application which
applicant filed-–Serial No. 75/163,499, seeking to register
the mark MICA LAMP COMPANY for the same goods. In that
opinion, the Board discussed the arguments and evidence of
applicant and the Examining Attorney and concluded that
applicant’s mark was unregistrable. For the reasons
indicated in that opinion, the Board likewise affirms the
refusal in this case.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
2 Pursuant to applicant’s request, applicant has sought
registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the
Act, 15 USC §1052(f), and on the Supplemental Register. See TMEP
§1212.02(c), which permits this practice.
3 In view of the circumstances set forth in applicant’s letter
accompanying its reply brief, filed June 2, 2000, the reply brief
is accepted as timely.