CAFC Lacks Jurisdiction, Dismisses Stoller Appeal from PTO Sanctions Order

In an Order issued yesterday, the CAFC dismissed Leo Stoller's appeal from the PTO's July 14th Sanctions Order, concluding that it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of a sanction decision by the PTO Director. In re Leo Stoller, Appeal No. 2006-1534.

Leo Stoller
The appellate court noted that its jurisdiction to review decisions concerning trademark cases "is prescribed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1295(a)(4)(B)." That statutory provision references Section 21 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1071, which provides for appeal to the CAFC in certain situations, including oppositions. However, the PTO's decision "was not issued within a trademark opposition proceeding and does not otherwise fall within the statutory provisions cited above."

The court therefore ruled that it does not have jurisdiction. It agreed with the PTO that Stoller's right to direct review, "if any, would be pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq.)."

TTABlog comment: It appears that, under the APA, the proper route for Mr. Stoller would be a civil action in the U.S. district court for review of the agency decision. See, for example, the lawsuit involving THE LAST BEST PLACE, TTABlogged here.

For other TTABlog postings regarding Stoller's appeal, go here, here, here, and here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2006.