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

[Heather Vargas]

My recollection is that when Pam decided to do this, a bunch of us piped up and said we would contribute, but it sounds like we did not follow through.  I would submit that rather than general statements of support, we either “pledge” a specific amount that Pam or her proxy can come ask us to fulfill, or we set up a fund and Pam can decide when day zero to file the motion hits, if we put our money where our mouths are.  I am sorry that I cannot personally coordinate this; I am almost a year into covering my practice plus my partner’s who has been on medical leave for the better part of a year, but I will pledge or contribute if one of these things happens.




[cid:cobbcolelogomodrgb_4d64a9e3-83d6-4a74-9443-b78133d2646e.png]       Heather Vargas (She/Her/Hers)
Florida Bar No. 230900
Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law
Cobb Cole
149 S. Ridgewood Avenue
Suite 700
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
(D) 386-323-9220 | (F) 386-323-9206
Website<https://cobbcole.com/> | Bio<https://cobbcole.com/attorney/heather-bond-vargas/>



Notice: The information contained in this email transmission is intended by the sender for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, anyone other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee). It should not be copied or forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email or by calling Cobb Cole at 386-255-8171, so that we can update our address records accordingly.
From: E-trademarks <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 <Daan.Erikson at huschblackwell.com><mailto: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><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Welch, John L. <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com><mailto: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/20240216/4041a93a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cobbcolelogomodrgb_4d64a9e3-83d6-4a74-9443-b78133d2646e.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13405 bytes
Desc: cobbcolelogomodrgb_4d64a9e3-83d6-4a74-9443-b78133d2646e.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240216/4041a93a/attachment.png>