NFE, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2003

No. 76218190re (T.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2003)

Mailed: September 12, 2003
Paper No. 12
csl
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re NFE, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/218,190
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
Arthur G. Yeager for NFE, Inc.
Tanya Amos, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
(Angela Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Holtzman and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On August 4, 2003, applicant filed an amendment and a
request for reconsideration from the July 10, 2003 decision
of the Board affirming the refusal of the Examining
Attorney to register the mark PUMP GUARD for “enclosures in
the nature of fiberglass laminate material with and without
insulation for environmental protection of above ground
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/218,190
2
pumps and plumbing of water supply systems.” The Board
held that, in view of the record, applicant’s mark is
merely descriptive of its goods.
In its amendment and request for reconsideration,
applicant seeks to add a claim of ownership of a recently
issued registration for the mark VENT GUARD to the claim in
the original application that applicant is the owner of
Registration No. 2,252,261 for the mark VALVE GUARD.
Applicant also seeks to amend the application to cancel the
disclaimer of the word “GUARD” in the application.
Applicant argues that it has established a family of marks
which are recognized by its purchasers.
Trademark Rule 2.142(g) provides that an application,
which has been considered and decided on appeal, will not
be reopened except for the entry of a disclaimer, or upon
order of the Director, but a petition to the Director to
reopen an application will be considered only upon a
showing of sufficient cause for consideration of any matter
not already adjudicated. Accordingly, applicant’s request
for reconsideration and amendment seeking to add a claim of
ownership of another registration and to delete the
disclaimer cannot be granted.1

1 In any event, the proposed amendments, even if entered in the file,
would not have changed the outcome in this case. The record already
included applicant’s claim of ownership of another registration
Serial No. 76/218,190
3
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for
reconsideration is denied.

containing the word “GUARD,” and the record satisfactorily demonstrates
the descriptiveness of the mark sought to be registered.