USPTO Receives Court Order to Cancel 34 "STEALTH" Registrations Owned by Stoller's Company

I heard the news today (oh, boy!) about Paul McCartney signing a deal with Starbucks, but the song "Jet" playing in the background reminded me of my parody version, "Stealth," which in turn reminded me of Leo Stoller's lawsuit against Pure Fishing in Chicago. As I suggested in my song, it indeed looks like "the golden days are over for lying in Stealth," because Pure Fishing has now delivered to the USPTO the federal court's Final Judgment that calls for the cancellation of 34 STEALTH registrations owned by Stoller's company, Central Mfg. Co.

Leo Stoller
In case you don't recall the details, the history of the Pure Fishing lawsuit may be traced through these TTABlog postings:

• Defendants In Chicago Lawsuit Charge Leo Stoller With TTAB Abuses As Part Of "Extortionate Protection Scheme"


• "Gross Misconduct" of Leo Stoller and his Counsel Leads to Dismissal of Chicago Lawsuit


• Chicago Federal Court Orders Cancellation of 35 Stoller "STEALTH" Registrations

Stoller appealed from the court's October 4, 2006 Order requiring cancellation of the STEALTH registrations, but he failed to timely file his brief, leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution on February 12, 2007. The Court of Appeals issued its Mandate on March 8, 2007.

On March 12, 2007, Pure Fishing delivered to the USPTO a "Submission of Judicial Mandate Cancelling Registrations (link here)," which included certified copies of the Final Judgment of the district court and of the appellate court's mandate dismissing the appeal, and a list of the 34 registrations facing cancellation.


TTABlog comment: I cannot explain why 34 STEALTH registrations are listed in the recent Pure Fishing filing, while 35 were listed in the Pure Fishing district court papers. I have made appropriate inquiries. [Lance Johnson reports that Reg. No. 1,947,145 for the mark STEALTH TECHNOLOGY was not renewed, and was dropped form the list when the amended complaint was filed].

The cancellation of these registrations of course does not prevent Stoller and his companies from claiming common law rights in the STEALTH mark, but common law rights require proof of use. Gone are the presumptions that accompany the registrations, and proof of rights in the STEALTH mark will require Mr. Stoller and his company to provide real evidence.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2007.