Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments


Archived updates for Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Leo Stoller Sanctioned by US-TTAB

Thanks to John Welch at the TTABlog for letting us know that the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has sanctioned Leo Stoller for "filing of an extraordinary number of requests for extension of time to oppose." The sanctions include
  • vacating the approval of each of his (more than 1800) requests for extension of time to oppose filed since November 2005
  • prohibiting him from the filing of any further request for extension of time to oppose for two years, and
  • permanently prohibiting him from appearing before the USPTO on your own behalf or as an officer, director, or partner of any entity for the purpose of filing any request to extend time to file a notice of opposition, or any paper associated therewith.

According to the July 14, 2006 letter from Chief Administrative Trademark Judge J. David Sams,

At your website, you offer to "RENT-A-FAMOUS slogan" and offer "Famous
Trademarks for Rent On-Line." Your website states that you "control over 10,000
famous trademarks…." Nonetheless, the exhibits from your website do not
demonstrate your offering for sale any goods or services, other than the
"rental" of the marks themselves, nor do the website exhibits demonstrate the
use of any of the asserted terms as trademarks. These excerpts from your
website, rather than evidencing support of any purported claim for damage,
reinforce the conclusion that you are holding up thousands of applications in an
attempt to coerce applicants to license, i.e., "rent," trademarks to which you
have not demonstrated any proprietary right. Cf. Central Mfg. Co. v. Brett, 78
USPQ2d 1662, 1675 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ("Leo Stoller and his companies present
paradigmatic examples of litigants in the business of bringing oppressive
litigation designed to extract settlement.")

Even so, Mr. Stoller has yet to give up th fight. He notes in his Rentamark Blog posting for July 19, 2006,

There is no Board rule that limits the amount of extensions a party not violate
an file. The Board did and cannot point to any Rule that Stoller
violated. Stoller is absolutely confident of receiving a fully and fair hearing
before the Federal Circuit and that after such hearing Stoller will be
vindicated, because Stoller did not violate any Board Rule.

For more information , check out the TTABlog's Leo Stoller Collection.

    (6)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    

6 Comments:

Blogger LAN said...

puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes

January 07, 2010 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Chili Palmer said...

On December 4, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered that the Special Master’s report regarding Leo Stoller’s truthfulness be forwarded to the United States Attorney for consideration of whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury. The Court of Appeals also ordered the Mack bar against Leo Stoller to be reinstated, directing the clerks in all federal courts within the 7th Circuit not to accept any papers submitted by Stoller. The court entered the orders after establishing Stoller had been deceitful.

Read the documents at: http://www.scribd.com/ChiliPalmer75

March 20, 2010 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Chili Palmer said...

On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court (First District) granted an order taking judicial notice that Leo Stoller had been deceptive.

The Illinois Appellate Court, on its own motion, also ordered that Leo Stoller show cause as to why he should not be held in Contempt of Court regarding sixteen appeals. The Court also ordered Leo Stoller to show cause as to why those appeals should not be dismissed.

The Illinois Appellate Court entered the orders in view of an earlier order entered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that order, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney to determine whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury.

Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037025/LEO-STOLLER-JUDICIALLY-NOTICED-FOR-DECEPTION

March 20, 2010 11:42 PM  
Anonymous Chili Palmer said...

On March 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) entered an order dismissing several appeals filed by Leo Stoller. The matter came before the court on the court's own rule to show cause why Leo Stoller should not be held in contempt and the appeals dismissed.

In this order, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) noted that it had taken judicial notice of an order entered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the matter of In re Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240 (7th Cir., Dec. 4. 2009). In that order, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for determination of whether Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury.

The Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) also noted that Leo Stoller had filed a response to the matter before it on February 19, 2010, and that Leo Stoller had contradicted himself in his response.

This order follows a long history of sanctions against Leo Stoller. Several courts have noted that Leo Stoller's "lack of credibility is a matter of public record."

Read the documents at:
http://www.scribd.com

March 21, 2010 3:45 AM  
Anonymous Chili Palmer said...

U.S. DISTRICT COURT BANS LEO STOLLER

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) on April 26, 2010, Chief Judge James F. Holderman clarifies the effect of a December 4, 2009 order issed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the filing ban imposed on Leo Stoller.

The December 4, 2009 order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit banned Leo Stoller from further filings in that court– in what is commonly referred to as a ‘Mack’ bar– for engaging in deceitful behavior. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the Mack bar against Leo Stoller is to remain in effect until at least
December 4, 2011.

In the Opinion and Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Illinois, the Honorable James F. Holderman notes that the Seventh Circuit ordered ”‘the clerks of all federal courts in this circuit… to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by [Leo] [Stoller] or on [Stoller's] behalf.’”

Therefore, the U.S. District Court reasoned, the plain language of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Order requires that Leo Stoller be barred from initiating any new lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois, and that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois cannot permit Leo Stoller to litigate his claims in that court.

Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31292372/U-S-DISTRICT-COURT-BANS-LEO-STOLLER

May 13, 2010 1:30 AM  
Anonymous Chili Palmer said...

LEO STOLLER INDICTED ON FEDERAL FRAUD CHARGES

Read the documents at:
http://www.scribd.com/ChiliPalmer75

January 21, 2011 9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home