The Melting Pot Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2003

No. 75787879re (T.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2003)

Mailed: July 8, 2003
Paper No. 22
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re The Melting Pot Corp.
________
Serial No. 75/787,879
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
James C. Wray for The Melting Pot Corp.
Edward Nelson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114
(K. Margaret Lee, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Hanak and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On April 21, 2003, applicant filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision issued March 20,
2003 affirming the refusal of registration of PBC POSTAL
BUSINESS CENTER and design for “providing for the rental of
mail boxes, mailing articles and packaging articles for
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 75/787,879
2
transportation,” in the absence of a disclaimer of the
words POSTAL BUSINESS CENTER.
In particular, applicant asserts that the Board
“overlooked the only direct evidence” of service mark use
of POSTAL BUSINESS CENTER. The NEXIS excerpt on which
applicant relies reads as follows:
All are available free at your local post-office
or Postal Business Center.
The Board did not overlook this evidence. We
specifically noted on page 5, at footnote 1 of our
decision:
While in some instances the use of capital
letters may indicate that a phrase is being
used as a trademark, it is not clear from
this excerpt how “Postal Business Center”
is being used.
In other words, it was not clear from this limited
excerpt that “Postal Business Center” was being used as an
apparent source indicator for applicant’s services. Even
assuming that “Postal Business Center” was being used in
such manner, this single excerpt is not controlling on the
issue of mere descriptiveness.
We remain convinced that the record in this case
demonstrates that POSTAL BUSINESS CENTER is merely
descriptive of applicant’s services. In view of the
Ser No. 75/787,879
3
foregoing, applicant’s request for reconsideration is
denied.