[E-trademarks] CAFC handed down its opinion in In re Chestek today.

[Carl Oppedahl]

The appeal effort up until now had cost the applicant/appellant really a 
lot of money, many tens of thousands of dollars.  I am aware of at least 
one member of the listserv who contributed a bit of money toward that cost.

Yes, an /en banc /request might be worth pursuing.  This would cost some 
tens of thousands of dollars in addition to the costs already incurred.

I wonder whether the trademark community would be willing to pony up the 
cost of the /en banc /request?  Possible approaches could include 
setting up a gofundme (which would incur fees to the provider of the 
gofundme service) or perhaps a listserv member serving as the collection 
point for contributions.  I imagine there any of a number of listserv 
members who could be trusted to provide that service and would not ask 
for any fee for that service.

Carl

On 2/15/2024 8:57 AM, John L. Welch via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Maybe a request for /en banc/ reconsideration would be worth pursuing?
>
> JLW
>
> *From:*Erikson, Daan <Daan.Erikson at huschblackwell.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2024 9:25 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Welch, John L. <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com>
> *Subject:* RE: CAFC handed down its opinion in In re Chestek today.
>
> I have read this decision and am curious what others think of the 
> reasoning.  I find the last part of the decision (page 13) 
> particularly perplexing.  Isn’t it circular to say that an agency 
> doesn’t have to prepare for every eventuality, especially when there 
> is nothing in the record about privacy concerns, when there wasn’t a 
> reason for people to be concerned about privacy during the notice and 
> comment period?  And anyway how is this change not a substantive rule 
> that affects individual rights and obligations when it affects 
> individuals’ privacy rights?
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *John L. Welch via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:34 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* John L. Welch <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] CAFC handed down its opinion in In re 
> Chestek today.
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> The “where do you sleep at night” case.
>
> Pdf attached
>
> JLW
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240215/a17a0deb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240215/a17a0deb/attachment.p7s>