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

[Pamela Chestek]

Hi all,

It's not looking promising for a petition for rehearing. There haven't 
been enough contributions to cover the attorneys' fees that I will 
incur, despite a post on Patently-O 
<https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/02/limit-chestek-frees.html> that 
points out the additional power that the Federal Circuit has given the 
PTO. It doesn't seem that enough people are sufficiently alarmed by it 
to cover the cost of trying to have the decision reversed. If you know 
anyone who might be willing to help, here's a link to the form again, 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJKXeXfrg_G40wiedbZvAhB-lIS_d33QUEKTILa63q4Quybw/viewform.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville Street
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

On 2/16/2024 7:58 AM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> 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/20240225/ee843104/attachment.htm>