Leo Stoller Part 2: Remember what was said about sticking your hand in a hornet's nest?
Regular readers will remember the various reports about Leo Shyster (oops Stoller), the guy who tried to claim ownership of the word "Castle".
It seems the USPTO has finally run out of patience with Mr Stoller:
Some choice quotes:
"... your filing of more than 1100 requests for extension of time to oppose within the few months preceding the date of the show cause order suggested a serious violation of your responsibilities as a party before the USPTO.
...the exhibits from your website do not demonstrate your offering for sale any goods or services, other than the “rental” of the marks themselves, nor do the website exhibits demonstrate the use of any of the asserted terms as trademarks. These excerpts from your website, rather than evidencing support of any purported claim for damage, reinforce the conclusion that you are holding up thousands of applications in an attempt to coerce applicants to license, i.e., “rent,” trademarks to which you have not demonstrated any proprietary right.
...Your filing of an extraordinary number of requests for extension of time to oppose, particularly in light of your past behavior before the TTAB and the courts, constitutes a violation of your responsibilities under Patent and Trademark Rule 10.18(b).
...it is determined that you have not made a showing that you have a colorable claim of damage justifying the extension requests filed during the period in question and have failed to establish good cause for filing such requests. It is determined, further, that you filed the extension requests for improper purposes, namely, to harass the applicants to pay you to avoid litigation or to license one of the marks in which you assert a baseless claim of rights.
...The approval of each request for extension of time to oppose that you have filed since November 2005 is hereby vacated.
...You are hereby prohibited for a period of TWO YEARS from the date of this order from filing, on your own behalf or as an officer, director, or partner of any entity you control, any request for extension of time to oppose under Trademark Rule 2.102. This two-year prohibition applies whether or not you are represented by an attorney.
..You are PERMANENTLY prohibited from appearing before the USPTO on your own behalf or as an officer, director, or partner of any entity you control for the purpose of filing any request to extend time to file a notice of opposition or any paper associated therewith. Any such future request must be filed by an attorney, who will be bound to act in accordance with USPTO Rule 10.18(b).
Finally, you requested “direction” in how to proceed before the TTAB. As a frequent party to proceedings before the TTAB during the past ten years, you have been informed repeatedly about how the TTAB expects proceedings to be conducted. In the past, you have often ignored the direction given you by the TTAB, in the form of information or reprimand, or have found a way to side step such direction with improper or bad faith conduct.
Consequently, the TTAB’s “direction” to you will remain the same that it has been for many years and the same as that given to other litigants representing themselves: engage an experienced trademark lawyer. Failing that, read and follow the applicable statute, rules, and cases and consult the TBMP for guidance."
Castlecops are, of course, pleased at the decision of the TTAB:
My only comment to Castlecops... don't gloat *too* much... it may come back to bite you and only increase Stoller's determination to fight for his "rights".
Leo, being the type of guy that seems to like sticking his hand in a hornet's nest, has appealed: