Speedway Motorsports, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2003

No. 75160194re (T.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2003)

Mailed:
9/9/03
Paper No. 29
RFC
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Speedway Motorsports, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/160,194
_______
Second Request for Reconsideration
Warren G. Olsen of Fitzpatrick, Cella & Scinto for Speedway
Motors, Inc.
Cathleen Pace Cain, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Chapman and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Cissel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board affirmed the refusal to register under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act on January 30, 2003.
Applicant’s first request for reconsideration, filed
February 28, 2003, was denied by the Board order dated June
4, 2003. On July 2, 2003, applicant filed a second request
for reconsideration.
Ser No. SN. 75/160,194
2
Applicant again alleges that the Board
mischaracterized applicant's November 16, 2000 amendment.
As we noted in both our original opinion and our ruling on
the first request for reconsideration, the amendment was
made at applicant's direction. It was not contingent upon
acceptance by the Examining Attorney, and even if that had
been the case, the action of the Examining Attorney
following applicant's amendment is consistent with the
acceptance of it.
The second point raised in applicant's second request
for reconsideration was also argued and rejected by the
Board in both our original opinion and our ruling on
applicant's first request for reconsideration. While
consistent action throughout the agency is an acknowledged
goal, the Board is not bound by the actions of individual
examining attorneys in passing other applications to
publication. Our task is to resolve the appeals before us
on their merits as presented by their records, and this we
have done. Stated another way, that third-party
applications may appear to have been treated differently by
other examining attorneys from the way in which the
application before us in this appeal has been treated by
the examining attorney is not binding on the Board.
Ser No. SN. 75/160,194
3
The third point argued in applicant's second request
for reconsideration again relates to the question of
applicant's amendment deleting eight classes of goods. As
noted above, that issue was discussed in our original
opinion, and then discussed again in response to
applicant's first reconsideration request. We have twice
explained our ruling in this regard, and we decline to do
so again.
Applicant has revealed no error in the Board's
previous two rulings in this matter. Accordingly,
applicant's request (p.5) that we "take up the amended
appeal on the eight additional classes" is denied.