[E-trademarks] A pledge from a listserv member (was Re: CAFC handed down its opinion in In re Chestek today.)
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Fri Feb 16 10:56:28 EST 2024
Thank you David for the money pledge. Can you please enter the pledge
here
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJKXeXfrg_G40wiedbZvAhB-lIS_d33QUEKTILa63q4Quybw/viewform?usp=sf_link>?
On 2/16/2024 7:34 AM, David Boundy via E-trademarks wrote:
> I pledge $3000 and an amicus brief. I will contact Brad Forrest who
> may be able to route this through AIPLA (it'd be more effective to
> have this coming from AIPLA than from just plain old me or from
> PTAAARMIGAN). If AIPLA doesn't bite, I'll file another as plain old me.
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 9:31 AM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Heather is right. I spent six figures on the appeal and I received
> two donations (thank you so much to those who donated).
>
> I can't afford to take this any further; I have a small practice.
> I don't have a good estimate yet for the cost for a petition for
> rehearing, but ballpark is $30K.
>
> But it's more than that. Reviews are rarely granted and to
> increase the likelihood of success we need amici. I think that the
> IP organizations (INTA, AIPLA, IPO, ABA) should be alarmed by the
> unchecked rulemaking power of the USPTO, which doesn't apply just
> to trademarks, but patents too. Other organizations should be
> alarmed by the fact that the PTO has zero concern for vulnerable
> populations, privacy in general, or computer security. Through
> eliding by the PTO, the board also misunderstood that other
> countries do NOT require address information and seemed to weigh
> that incorrect fact fairly heavily, so we need someone to correct
> that misunderstanding. I understand that the amici lift is fairly
> light though, limited to 2600 words.
>
> I can't afford, in money, time or contacts, to do it by myself
> anymore. I also have to decide fairly soon whether to petition for
> rehearing so my lawyer will have time to brief it.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 300 Fayetteville St.
> Unit 2402
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>
>
>
> On 2/16/2024 7:28 AM, Heather Vargas via E-trademarks wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Picture1.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>
>> <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>
>> <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com> <mailto: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>
>> *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
>>
>>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner |Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737| Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> _dboundy at potomaclaw.com_ __| _www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>_
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240216/aceccd50/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: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240216/aceccd50/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20240216/aceccd50/attachment.p7s>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list