CAFC Hears Oral Argument in In Re Chestek PLLC, the "Where Do You Sleep at Night?" Case
On December 7th, the CAFC heard oral argument in In re Chestek PLLC. As you may recall, Pamela Chestek, sometimes known as the IP Ownership Maven (blog), applied to register the mark CHESTEK LEGAL on behalf of her law firm, for "legal services." However, she declined to provide the "domicile address" of applicant, instead furnishing a post office box number in Raleigh, North Carolina. The USPTO refused registration, citing violation of Trademark Rules 2.189 and 2.32(a)(2) because a post office box is not a street address. Chestek PLLC argued that the applicable rules were unlawfully promulgated and should not be enforced. The Board disagreed. [TTABlogged here].
Carl Oppedahl, at his Ant-Like Persistence blog, has the transcript of the argument here. You may listen to the argument via the mp3 link immediately below.
Read comments and post your comment xxxx">here.
TTABlogger comment: How do you think the CAFC will rule?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 12/20/2023
6 comments
6 Comments:
Considering that she lists her physical address in plain sight on her website, what is the point here? Is she attempting to get free publicity? Is this really a cause that she is passionate about? Sounds like a waste of time and resources for everyone involved.
Yes, it is a cause I am passionate about.
Maybe she represents a lot of Chinese-national Amazon sellers.
I'm not sure the salient points of this case's argument were properly put forth by Chestek's lawyer either. Seems like he saved his best points for his rebuttal. What a shame. I predict the CAFC will uphold the TTAB's refusal of registration.
"Maybe she represents a lot of Chinese-national Amazon sellers."
Nope, not a one!! I do, though, have clients who have received death threats and been stalked and SWATted.
So many people do not follow the address rules or find a way around them by just using some other address.
The USPTO wastes so much time making people jump through silly hoops. Such a waste of time for everyone, but thanks to Pam for taking the time to point it out.
If the USPTO wanted to make many things easier and simpler they could, but then they would not have to hire all the new attorneys and review staff to issue rejections of proper specimens. And don't get me started about the USPTO taking all the time they want to do their review, but cutting our time in half and charging a fee to add 3 months. But I digress.
Go Pam!
Post a Comment
<< Home