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

[Carl Oppedahl]

Thank you Miriam.  Can you please enter the pledge here 
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJKXeXfrg_G40wiedbZvAhB-lIS_d33QUEKTILa63q4Quybw/viewform?usp=sf_link>?

On 2/15/2024 9:02 PM, mrichter richtertrademarks.com wrote:
>
> I’m in!
>
> Best,
>
> Miriam
>
> Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
>
> /Make Your Mark!// ®/
>
> Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
> 2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
> Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
>
> 954-977-4711 office
>
> 954-240-8819 cell
> 954-977-4717 facsimile
> *
> **NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail 
> message contains _confidential information_ that may be _legally 
> privileged_. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
> review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate 
> this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail 
> in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by 
> telephone at 954-977-4711 and delete this message. Please note that if 
> this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a 
> prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any 
> attachments may not have been produced by the sender.*
>
> *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> *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/20240216/c42187e5/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/20240216/c42187e5/attachment.p7s>