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

[Maria Eliseeva]

There is a fundraising platform called Zeffy (for nonprofits), there are no platform fees, there is an option for donors to leave a voluntary donation for the platform. 

 

I don’t know if fundraising via a nonprofit will be suitable for the cause, but I thought I would mention it.

 

Maria

----------------------------------------

Maria Eliseeva 

Patentbar International 

1-617-332-5800(p)

 <mailto:maria at patentbar.com> maria at patentbar.com

 <http://www.patentbar.com/> www.patentbar.com

 

From: E-trademarks [mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com] On Behalf Of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:27 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] CAFC handed down its opinion in In re Chestek today.

 

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  <mailto:Daan.Erikson at huschblackwell.com> <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.  <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Welch, John L.  <mailto:John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> >
Cc: John L. Welch <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com <mailto: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/20240216/2efb6ffd/attachment.htm>