RF Monolithics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2007

No. 78526998re (T.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2007)

Mailed: August 28, 2007
GDH/gdh

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re RF Monolithics, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78526998
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

William A. Munck and Cami Dawson Boyd of Munck Butrus, P.C. for
RF Monolithics, Inc.

Rebeccah Gan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103
(Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hohein, Holtzman and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Hohein, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant, by a certificate of mailing dated August 20,
2007, has filed a timely request for reconsideration of our July
19, 2007 decision affirming the refusal, under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), to register the term
"RFMESH" on the Principal Register in standard character form for
"communication equipment, namely, hardware, software and firmware
for use in creating, using and maintaining mesh networks,
including stand-alone nodes, radio frequency modules, and related
components for reading, sharing, processing and controlling
information among such stand-alone nodes, radio frequency
THIS OPINION IS
NOT A PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 78526998
2
modules, and related components" in International Class 9 on the
ground that the mark is merely descriptive of such goods. In
addition to setting forth various arguments, the request for
reconsideration includes a request, in the alternative, that
"[i]n the event that the Board denies Applicant's Request for
Reconsideration, or reaffirms the refusal to register the Mark on
the grounds that it is merely descriptive, ... the Board permit
Applicant to amend its application to seek registration of the
Mark on the Supplemental Register."
While we have carefully considered the arguments raised
by applicant, we remain convinced that, for the reasons fully set
forth in our July 19, 2007 decision, the term "RFMESH" is
properly considered to be merely descriptive of applicant's
goods. Applicant's arguments, in essence, constitute nothing
more than a rehash of those previously made in its appeal and
reply briefs, and none is persuasive of a different result in
this appeal. Moreover, as to applicant's alternative request to
permit amendment of the application to the Supplemental Register,
Trademark Rule 2.142(g) specifically provides, in relevant part,
that "[a]n application which has been considered and decided on
appeal will not be reopened except for the entry of a disclaimer
under §6 of the Act of 1946." Plainly, the alternative request
to amend the application to the Supplemental Register raises a
new issue as to whether the term "RFMESH" is capable of
registration thereon and, thus, is not permitted after this
appeal was decided. See TBMP §1218 (2d ed. rev. 2004).
Ser. No. 78526998
3
Accordingly, because we discern no error in our July
19, 2007 decision and amendment of the application to the
Supplemental Register is not permitted, applicant's request for
reconsideration is denied.