Stoller Sanctioned By USPTO’s Trademark Trial & Appeal Board
Leo Stoller has been involved in numerous Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings.Since November 2005, Leo Stoller has filed well over 1800requests for extension of time to oppose with the TTAB.
We are pleased to report that on July 14, 2006, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sanctioned Leo Stoller. The 15-page Order (please see above pdf) signed by Chief Administrative Trademark Judge Sams, noted the TTAB’s March 28, 2006 show cause order and the applicable rules; summarized Leo Stoller’s response; and determined that Leo Stoller had violated Trademark Rule 10.18(b).
The specific sanctions entered are the following:
- (i) the approval of each request for extension of time to oppose filed by Stoller since November 2005 is vacated, and if Stoller has filed any notice(s) of opposition under any of the extension requests now vacated, the opposition(s) “shall be dismissed”;
- (ii) Stoller is prohibited for a period of two years from the date of the Order from filing any requests for extension of time to oppose on Stoller’s own behalf, or as an officer, director, or partner of any entity he controls (this two-year prohibition applies whether or not Stoller is represented by an attorney);
- (iii) Stoller is permanently prohibited from appearing before the USPTO on his own behalf, or as an officer, director, or partner of any entity he controls, for the purpose of filing any request to extend time to file a notice of opposition (“or any paper associated therewith”) and such requests must be filed by an attorney.
The TTAB Order ends with a statement that there is a potential for broader sanctions against Stoller; and that the question of broader sanctions will be revisited if Stoller commits “further improprieties in proceedings before the TTAB.”
Stoller asserts that he has filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an emergency motion to stay the sanctions.
For the sake of trademark applicants that had to incur cost to defend against Stoller’s many oppositions and requests for extension of time to oppose, and the integrity of the trademark process at the USPTO, it is hoped that the Court will uphold this TTAB Order. Oblon, Spivak will continue to monitor developments and report to our clients as needed. *Former Administrative Trademark Judge, Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. **See, e.g., Central Mfg. Inc. v. Third Millennium Technology, Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1210 (TTAB 2001); S. Industries v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 45 USPQ2d 1293 (TTAB 1997).