February 9, 2006
In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between
JON E. WHITLEY
and
JOSEPH C. TRAPANESE
P.S. Docket No.
MD 05-219
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JON E. WHITLEY:
Jon E. Whitley
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JOSEPH C. TRAPANESE:
Joseph C. Trapanese
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
On
January 20, 2006, an Initial Decision was issued in which an Administrative Law
Judge concluded that all mail addressed to Coastal Firearms at 1161 Highway 41,
Disputant Whitley contends that he is entitled to direct delivery of the mail because he has continuously used the name in dispute since March 2004. However, much of that use has been at a different address, and Disputant Trapanese used the disputed name before and after Disputant Whitley at the address in dispute. The purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is to determine the person entitled to obtain delivery of the disputed mail, not the ownership of the mail or any other dispute between the parties.[2] Disputant Whitley has not shown that he is entitled to exclusive use of the name in dispute, that he is currently operating a business at the address in dispute or that the Initial Decision is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Initial Decision is now final under 39 C.F.R. §965.12, and all mail addressed to Coastal Firearms at 1161 Highway 41, Mount Pleasant, SC 29466-8602 should be delivered as directed by Joseph C. Trapanese.
The parties are reminded that this decision determines only the right to delivery of the mail in dispute, not the ownership of the mail. If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.
David I. Brochstein
Acting Judicial Officer
[1] Disputant
Whitley attached evidence to his appeal which had not previously been presented
for inclusion in the record. Both parties were provided a full opportunity to
present evidence in support of their right to delivery of the disputed mail
while the matter was pending before the Administrative Law Judge. Since no showing has been made that the
evidence was newly discovered or that it was otherwise unavailable for
inclusion in the record before the Administrative Law Judge, it will not be
considered on appeal. The Pelican
Group and Consultis, Inc., P.S. Docket No. MD
00-475 (P.S.D.
[2] See Rocco S. Stezzi,
Jr. and Anne S. Maxwell, Esq. and Ronald Pelczar,
P.S. Docket No. MD 05-25 (P.S.D.