Leo Stoller Sanctioned by US-TTAB
- 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.
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.