Case: 14-1
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Document: 72
`
`Page: 1
`
`FilE Ll/28/2016
`
`14-1598
`
`In re: PREMA JYOTHI LIGHT,
`Appellant
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
`761293,327.
`
`MANDATE
`
`ln accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered October 7, 2016, and pursuant to Rule 41 (a) of
`the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`Isl Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Markste iner
`Clerk of Court
`
`cc: Thomas L. Casagrande
`Christina Hieber
`Thomas W. Krause
`Prema Jyothi Light
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Mary Beth Walker
`
`

`

`Case : 14-1!:
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 1
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Wniteb ~tates <!Court of ~peals
`for tbe jf eberal <!Circuit
`
`IN RE: PREMA JYOTHI LIGHT,
`Appellant
`
`2014-1 597
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
`76/293,326.
`
`IN RE: PREMA JYOTHI LIGHT,
`Appellant
`
`2014-1 598
`
`Appeal from t he United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
`76/293,327.
`
`Decided: October 7, 20 16
`
`PREMA JYOTHI LIGHT, Aurora, CO, pro se.
`
`

`

`Case : 14-E
`
`Document: 65-2
`
`Page: 2
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`2
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
`appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by CHRISTINA
`HIEBER, THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE, MARY BETH WALKER.
`
`Before LOURIE, DYK, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
`
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`
`Prema Jyothi Light ("Light") appeals from two related
`U.S . Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Trademark
`Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") decisions. In the first,
`Light appeals from the Board's rejection of her application
`to register the matter shown below as a trademark. In re
`Light, No. 76293326, 2013 WL 6858009, at *6-8 (T.T.A.B.
`Dec. 13, 2013) ("Decision I").
`
`In the second, Light appeals from the Board's rejection of
`her application to register the matter shown below as a
`trademark. In re Light, No. 76293327, 2013 WL 68580 10,
`at *5-7 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012) ("Decision II").
`
`/
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1!:
`
`Document: 65-2
`
`Page: 3
`
`Fil
`
`10/07/2016
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`3
`
`For the reasons that follow, we affirm both decisions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On July 9, 2001, Light filed two applications to regis(cid:173)
`ter the above-pictured matter as trademarks for use on,
`inter alia, cartoon prints, paper dolls, and coloring books.
`Decision I at *2; Decision II at *1. The first proposed
`mark contains stylized wording in the top left-hand
`corner, "SHIMMERING BALLERINAS & DANCERS
`three
`CHARACTER COLLECTION," surrounded by
`columns of terms "that appear to identify names of a
`variety of characters." Decision I at *1. Examples of the
`character names include: "SHIMMERING WIND -HARP
`BUTTERFLIES
`JALINDA,
`JALISA,
`JARA,
`JAJA,
`JELANI, & JUM" and "THE AIRY BALLERINA &
`DANCER CLARISSA." Id. The entire proposed mark has
`approximately 660 words and identifies more than ninety
`character names. S ee id.
`The second proposed mark similarly contains stylized
`wording in the top left-hand corner, "SHIMMERING
`RAINFOREST CHARACTER COLLECTION," surround(cid:173)
`ed by columns of "an extremely long list of terms (in
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1~
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 4
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`4
`
`I RE: LIGHT
`
`smaller font) identifying names of fictional characters."
`Decision II at *l. The character list includes: "JALINDA
`THE WIND HARP BUTTERFLY" and "HARRY &
`HARRIETA, THE HAIRY RAINFOREST SUSPENDER
`SPIDERS." Id. The entire proposed mark has approxi(cid:173)
`mately 570 words and identifies more than 125 character
`names. See id.
`
`The examining attorney rejected Light's applications,
`reasoning that each sought to register multiple marks. In
`response, Light filed proposed amendments to her marks.
`The examining attorney rejected the amendments, how(cid:173)
`ever, finding that the proposed changes effected material
`alterations of the subject matter. Light appealed to the
`Board, but because the appeals were not timely filed, the
`applications were abandoned.
`
`Light later successfully petitioned to revive her appli(cid:173)
`cations, and the Board reinstituted the original appeals.
`In 2008, the Board remanded the applications to t he
`examining attorney to consider whether the proposed
`marks constituted registrable subject matter, a different
`potential basis for rejection. The examining attorney
`issued Office Actions refusing to register the proposed
`marks because they "fail to function" as trademarks, and
`are thus not registrable subject matter.
`In the Office
`Actions, however, the examining attorney noted that
`Light could overcome t he failure-to-function rejections by
`amending the proposed marks to only seek registration of
`the stylized wording in the top left-hand corners: either
`the "SHIMMERING BALLERINAS & DANCERS" or t he
`"SHIMMERING RAINFOREST." Decision I at *1; Deci(cid:173)
`sion II at *l.
`Light failed to timely respond to those Office Actions,
`however, and her applications were yet again abandoned.
`Light again successfully petitioned to revive her applica(cid:173)
`tions, and the examining attorney considered Light's
`responses to t he Office Actions. Because Light still
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1:
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 5
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`5
`
`sought registration of the entire proposed marks, howev(cid:173)
`er, including the columns of text, the examining attorney
`maintained the original failure-to-function refusals. Light
`then resumed her appeals at the Board.
`
`Over the next two years, Light requested several ex(cid:173)
`tensions of time and remands to the examining attorney,
`all of which the Board granted. In June 2011, Light filed
`a request for reconsideration by the Board. Her request
`included additional specimens showing alleged trademark
`use, as well as a new claim that the proposed marks had
`acquired distinctiveness in accordance with Section 2(f) of
`the Lanham Act. The Board remanded to the examining
`attorney to fully consider the request for reconsideration.
`
`Further prosecution of the marks continued in May of
`2012 with a different examining attorney. The examining
`attorney again rejected the proposed marks for failing to
`function as trademarks. She further clarified that rejec(cid:173)
`tion based on the additional specimens, explained why the
`claims of acquired distinctiveness failed, and rejected the
`proposed amendments . Light filed responses to the Office
`Actions, but because her responses were not timely filed,
`the applications were yet again abandoned.
`
`In January 2013, Light submitted a single petition to
`revive both abandoned applications, but only paid the fee
`owed to revive one application, $100. The USPTO accord(cid:173)
`ingly issued a Notice of Deficiency asking for additional
`payment, another $100, to revive the second application.
`Light paid that fee, and both applications were revived.
`Light included with her petition additional specimens
`to support new requested amendments to show the sub(cid:173)
`ject matter in color. The examining attorney still refused
`to register the proposed marks because they fail to func(cid:173)
`tion as marks under the Lanham Act, they had not been
`shown to be a source indicator or to have acquired distinc(cid:173)
`tiveness under Section 2(f), and the requested amend-
`
`

`

`Case : 14-1~
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 6
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`6
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`ments effect impermissible material alterations of the
`subject matter.
`
`Light resumed her appeal at the Board, and both par(cid:173)
`ties filed new appeal briefs. See Decision I at *2; Decision
`II at *2. The Board issued its now-challenged decisions,
`affirming the examining attorney's refusal to register the
`proposed marks. The Board first addressed the failure -to(cid:173)
`function rejection and concluded that (1) the number of
`words is simply "too great to be a useful means for con(cid:173)
`sumers to differentiate one source from another"; (2) the
`additional specimens do not present the subject matter
`such that they will be "perceived as trademark[s] or as
`indicating the source of the applicant's identified goods,"
`but rather the specimens reveal that the matters "merely
`identif[y] what appears to be a title (of a story, e.g.) and a
`list of fanciful, fictional names"; and (3) the amendments
`do not help the subject matter to function as trademarks.
`Decision I at *3-6; Decision II at *2-5.
`
`The Board next rejected Light's acquired distinctive(cid:173)
`ness claim because it "appears to rest essentially on her
`alleged years of use of the applied-for mark in the manner
`shown in the previously-discussed specimens," yet "th[ose]
`specimens do not demonstrate trademark use." Decision I
`at *6; Decision II at *5 . Last, the Board rejected Light's
`proposed amendments, concluding that they would effect
`material alterations of the original subject matter. In
`particular, the Board found that (1) removing the columns
`and displaying the character names instead in a radial or
`"starburst" manner "creates a new commercial impression
`that would necessarily involve a new search by the exam(cid:173)
`ining attorney"; (2) converting the proposed stylized mark
`to a "single standard character mark" would likewise
`result in a mark "with a very different appearance and
`commercial impression"; and (3) adding a "colorful back(cid:173)
`ground, stars, and rays of light emanating from the top"
`would "require an additional conflicting mark search."
`Decision I at *7-8; Decision II at *6-7.
`
`

`

`Case : 14-1~
`
`Document: 65-2 Page : 7
`
`Fil
`
`10/07/2016
`
`INRE: LIGHT
`
`7
`
`Light timely appealed from the Board's decisions. We
`have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`We review the Board's legal conclusions de novo, In re
`Int'l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed.
`Cir. 1999), and the Board's factual findings for substantial
`evidence, On-Line Careline, Inc. u. Am. Online, Inc., 229
`F.3d 1080, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whether a mark func(cid:173)
`tions as a trademark to identify the source of an entity's
`goods, see In re Bush Bros. & Co., 884 F.2d 569, 57 1 (Fed.
`Cir. 1989), whether a mark has acquired distinctiveness,
`see Coach Serus., Inc. u. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d
`1356, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012), and last, whether a proposed
`amendment represents a material alteration of a mark, In
`re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 200 1), are
`all fact questions that we review for substantial evidence.
`
`Light raises several challenges on appeal. First, Light
`argues that her proposed marks function as trademarks,
`and have acquired distinctiveness based on decades of use
`as such. In particular, Light contends that th e proposed
`marks are "easily recognizable" and have been "placed on
`the back cover of leaflets or publications, where Trade(cid:173)
`marks are customarily found." E.g., Appellant's Br. 21
`(No. 2014-1598). Second, Light argues t hat her proposed
`amendments adding color features to the proposed marks
`do not effect material alterations, referring to Trademark
`Manual of Examining P rocedure § 807.1 4(e)(ii) in support.
`Third, Light contends that sh e was "hit" with a "doubled
`Petition Fee," and only owes $100 for the single petition to
`revive filed in January 2013 . Last, Light raises a series of
`administrative challenges to the USPTO's handling of her
`applications, including, among t he alleged "102 Incidents
`of Document Mishandling," mislabeling documents and
`uploadin g "skewed" versions of her proposed marks. See,
`e.g., id. at 5-14. We address and ultimately reject each of
`Light's challenges in turn.
`
`

`

`Case : 14-E
`
`Docu ment: 65-2 Page: 8
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`8
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`Substantial evidence supports the Board's determina(cid:173)
`tion that the proposed marks merely convey information
`and do not function as trademarks. The mere fact that a
`party intends a proposed mark to function as a trademark
`is insufficient. Roux Labs., Inc. u. Clairol, Inc., 427 F.2d
`823, 828-29 (C .C.P.A. 1970) ("The mere fact that a combi(cid:173)
`nation of words or a slogan is adopted and used by a
`manufacturer with the intent [that it function as a
`trademark] does not necessarily mean that the slogan
`accomplishes that purpose in reality."). Rather, the
`proposed mark must be perceived by the relevant public
`as conveying the commercial impression of a trademark.
`That is, the mark must identify the source of goods. In re
`Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F .2d 1116, 1123
`(Fed. Cir. 1985) ('Trademarks, indeed, are the essence of
`competition, because they make possible a choice between
`competing articles by enabling the buyer to distinguish
`one from the other." (citation omitted)); see also J . Thomas
`McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Com(cid:173)
`petition § 3:3 (4th ed. 2014) ("The prime question is
`whether the designation in question, as actually used, will
`be recognized in and of itself as an indication of origin for
`this particular product or service.") (footnote omitted).
`
`The Board made several factual findings in support of
`its conclusion that the relevant public would not perceive
`Light's proposed marks as identifying the source of goods.
`The Board first found that the "sheer number and visual
`display of the words in the applied-for matter" make it
`"significantly more difficult" for the public to "perceive[
`the proposed mark] as a unitary trademark." Decision I
`at *4; Decision II at *3 . Each proposed mark contains
`over 570 words, arranged in column format, and, at core,
`"identifies what appears to be a title (of a story, e.g.) and a
`list of fanciful, fictional names for characters." Decision I
`at *4; Decision II at *4. Although there is no limit on the
`number of words that can make up a trademark, the
`Board correctly found here that the exhaustive list of
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1!: _
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 9
`
`Fi
`
`10/07/2016
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`9
`
`characters, recited in columnar format, weighs in favor of
`finding no registrable trademark. See, e.g., Smith u. M &
`B Sales & Mfg., 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2002 (N.D. Cal.
`1990).
`
`The submitted specimens do not suggest otherwise.
`The cover of the submitted playbook bears the title: "The
`Triple-Shimmering Shimmering Rainforest, Shimmering
`Ballerinas & Dancers And Shimmering Breezes Storybook
`Have Fun Playbook & Storybook For Children." See Joint
`App. 254 (No. 2014-1597). It displays the proposed mark
`to the right of the Introduction, which similarly contains a
`Id. at 257. As the Board found,
`list of character names.
`at best, "readers and users of [the playbook] will under(cid:173)
`stand the applied-for matter as simply identifying a title
`or theme for the playbook, [and] a corresponding list of
`character names in the playbook." Decision I at *5; Deci(cid:173)
`sion II at *4. Nothing about the use of the proposed
`marks in the playbook supports Light's argument that the
`proposed marks operate to identify the source of goods.
`
`

`

`Case : 14-15'
`
`Document: 65-2 Page : 10
`
`F
`
`: 10/07/2016
`
`10
`
`I RE: LIGHT
`
`Likewise, the submitted leaflets do not indicate a use
`of the proposed marks as trademarks. As shown below,
`the leaflet states: "Be sure to look for this unique Shim(cid:173)
`mering Ballerinas & Dancers Trademark, above, to as(cid:173)
`sure you that you have" the right products, "rather than
`knock-offs or plagiarized versions." S ee Appellee's Br. 13
`(No. 20 14-1597); Decision I at *5.
`
`!k _itlr< tL' ,I~, .l} t!iiJ WJi1]U'' J1irr111trrfr~ itiJllmii.b & D,IJilt'r~ f r,t fo1JiJrk.
`1lbt11'1', rli 1L'.lrrr~ )' 111 tl1~ y.1u frllL'( riHK11llL11f.' & pn11 l1i 5
`wir/1 tlv ow 'r:(, vr1~i11.1/
`...
`'
`5lrr1J11J1rri1;s R ;I/,·m1tis & 01111< rs Ch111'11lft"t'i,
`mrfro· tli.m kt1i•f · -,1flj iir f1u~1ans.111mi1111S ~f1luw!
`TIJ!> l•1'. 1 r!fi1/_ fo.1 ii~l' ~frl111r 11a.'1'$ 1lJ'JPCJ rd11 ~fk.'s, !1i>,1k/, di1
`,lfl.f LT 11•/Ji: l'.ll'i<'9' '~ .f''fUftlr J'll~/r.-JIJtlll$
`,,l delis,11 J'lll. 1:11I 1 11iu )' 'J1, 11!fetrm )'1't1, .mJ i1is!•trt' )\1ur
`l l'e tn'f IM/'II)' tc1 l111w rlrc prwii'<g~ L~ ·.;en•t'1tg)~lllJ
`, ~..- 6.-J li!1:1S)' •111mJ f<
`r h 111i'r11
`·11rr~
`Oru ·f1m1tTrr, Om f',·.i.-, '
`~- rrt"w11)r 'llii Lig/Jr
`
`· i
`
`1•1 ~ - PrtlllJ hV(bi Lijlhl
`
`

`

`Case: 14-15'
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 11
`
`F
`
`: 10/07/2016
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`11
`
`Light contends that any reader of the leaflet would neces(cid:173)
`sarily view the proposed mark at the top of the leaflet as
`the referred-to trademark. We disagree. As the Board
`instead found, "consumers that read this statement are
`likely to perceive applicant's reference to the 'Trademark'
`as referring to the actual 'SHIMMERING BALLERINAS
`& DANCERS" wording that is referenced in the statement
`and shown in the 'mark' in a larger, stylized font next to
`the 'TM' symbol." Decision I at *5; accord Decision II at
`*4 (same for the second proposed mark). "At best, con(cid:173)
`sumers would perceive SHIMMERING BALLERINAS &
`DANCERS as being the intended trademark while the
`CHARACTER COLLECTION (followed by a long list of
`character names) portion will merely be perceived as
`informational." Decision I at *5; accord Decision II at *4
`(same for the second proposed mark). As with the play(cid:173)
`book, nothing about the use of the proposed marks in the
`leaflet supports Light's argument that the marks operate
`to identify the source of goods.
`
`Light argues that, notwithstanding the above findings
`by the Board, her proposed marks have acquired distinc(cid:173)
`tiveness and are thus registrable. We disagree. As the
`Board found, absent "evidence that the matter has been
`promoted as a trademark," evidence noticeably absent in
`this case, "we cannot find that the applied-for mark has
`acquired distinctiveness regardless of the time the ap(cid:173)
`plied-for mark has been used in this manner." See Deci(cid:173)
`sion I at *6; Decision II at *5; see also Trademark Manual
`of Examining Procedure § 1202.04 ("The applicant cannot
`overcome a refusal of trademark registration [for failure
`to function as a trademark] on the ground that the matter
`is merely informational by attempting to amend the
`application to seek registration [under] § 2(£) [(acquired
`distinctiveness)]."). In sum, no evidence supports Light's
`contention that her proposed marks constitute registrable
`trademarks. We accordingly affirm the Board's decisions,
`
`

`

`Case: 14-15'
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 12
`
`F
`
`: 10/07/2016
`
`12
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`the exammmg attorney's failure-to(cid:173)
`which affirmed
`function rejections of Light's proposed marks.
`
`Turning to Light's second challenge, we likewise find
`that substantial evidence supports the Board's rejection of
`Light's proposed amendments for materially altering the
`original subject matter. An applicant for trademark must
`submit a drawing of the mark with the application. See
`37 C.F.R. § 2.52. The applicant may later submit an
`amendment to that drawing, however, provided "the
`proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark."
`Id. § 2.72(a)(2). "The general test of whether an altera(cid:173)
`tion is material is whether the mark would have to be
`republished after the alteration in order to fairly present
`the mark for purposes of opposition."
`In re Hacot(cid:173)
`Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation
`omitted); accord id. ("The modified mark must contain
`what is the essence of the original mark, and the new
`form must create the impression of being essentially the
`same mark." (citation omitted)). In addition, the Board
`regularly
`invokes Trademark Manual of Examining
`Procedure § 807. 14 for the proposition that "the addition
`of any element that would require a further search will
`[also] constitute a material alteration." See, e.g., In re
`Pierce Foods Corp., 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 307 (T.T.A.B.
`1986).
`
`In this case, the Board analyzed Light's three pro(cid:173)
`posed amendments and found that each constituted a
`material alteration of the subject matter because it would
`require an addition al search by the examining attorney or
`republication to alert the public for purposes of opposi(cid:173)
`tion. Decision I at *7-8; Decision II at *6-7. Light only
`appears to challenge one such finding on appeal, namely,
`the Board's finding that "a colorful background, stars, and
`rays of light emanating from the top left corner," and
`removing a not insignificant number of character names
`under the guise of correcting "typographical errors,"
`amounted to a material alteration of the proposed marks
`
`

`

`Case: 14-15
`
`Document: 65-2 Page: 13 F
`
`: 10/07/2016
`
`IN RE: LIGHT
`
`13
`
`because "they would clearly require an additional conflict(cid:173)
`ing mark search by the examining attorney." See Decision
`I at *8; Decision II at *7. Despite raising such a chal(cid:173)
`lenge, however, Light fails to direct us to any record
`evidence to support her contention. Instead, substantial
`evidence supports the Board's finding that the aforemen(cid:173)
`tioned changes are material alterations. In light of our
`standard of review, and Light's failure to proffer eviden(cid:173)
`tiary support, we must affirm the Board's rejection of
`Light's proposed amendments.
`
`Although prosecution of Light's proposed marks has
`lasted over twelve years, involving numerous issues, the
`Board expressly acknowledged that it was only address(cid:173)
`ing two issues in its decision. See Decision I at *3; Deci(cid:173)
`sion II at *2. Specifically, (1) whether the failure-to(cid:173)
`function refusal was correct, and the acquired distinctive(cid:173)
`ness claim insufficient, and (2) whether the examining
`attorney correctly rejected the proposed amendments for
`materially altering the proposed marks. Decision I at *3;
`Decision II at *2. The Board did not address any other
`issues, such as Light's alleged administrative impropriety
`during the course of prosecution, or Light's contention
`that she overpaid for her revival petition in January 2013.
`The Board did not address those issues on the grounds
`that they were not relevant to the appealed action or were
`untimely. See Decision I at *2; Decision II at *2. We see
`no error in the Board's refusal to consider those other
`issues.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`We have considered Light's remaining arguments, but
`conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing
`reasons, we affirm the Board's decisions.
`AFFIRMED
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1
`
`Document: 71 Page: 1
`
`Fil!
`
`10/27/2016
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`Wntteb ~tates (!Court of ~peals
`for tbe jf eberal (!Ctrcutt
`
`IN RE: PREMA JYOTHI LIGHT,
`Appellant
`
`2014-1598
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
`76/293,327.
`
`ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING
`
`Before LOURIE, DYK, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
`
`PERCURIAM.
`
`ORDER
`
`Appellant Prema Jyothi Light filed a petition for pan(cid:173)
`el rehearing.
`
`Upon consideration thereof,
`
`IT Is ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
`
`The mandate of the court will issue on November 28,
`2016.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1
`
`Document: 71 Page: 2
`
`FilE. _ 1012712016
`
`2
`
`INRE: LIGHT
`
`October 27, 2016
`Date
`
`Isl Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`

`

`r
`
`Case: 14-15
`
`Document: 70-1 Page: 1
`
`Fil
`
`10/11/2016
`
`JJn ~be mniteb ~tales <!Court of ~peal5
`for tbe .1'eberal <!Cirruit
`
`c~
`
`r--.>
`c;;:>
`.,, r
`r:::r-
`) Case #'s: 14-1597 & 14-1598
`0
`r rt(
`o ·-
`n
`l"T •
`--1
`)
`-;:
`____ _ ___ _ __ ) PETITION FOR PANEL REHEAfuNC-
`
`In Re Prema Jyothi Light,
`
`~.J
`:-r,
`
`Appellant Light hereby timely petitions for Panel Rehearing, regarding the
`
`Judgments of this Court, dated October 7, 2016, for the above-cited Cases.
`
`C5
`c..n
`CJ1
`
`This Petition is founded upon Federal Statutory Law, and Federal Rules of
`
`Court. Under Federal Statutory Law, 15 U.S.C. § 1071:
`
`"(1) An applicant for registration of a mark, party to an interference proceeding,
`party to an opposition proceeding, party to an application to register as a ]awful
`concurrent user, party to a cancellation proceeding, a registrant who has filed an
`affidavit as provided in section 1058 or section 71 of this title, or an applicant for
`renewal, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Director or Trademark Trial
`and Appeal Board, may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit .... "
`
`This is a right granted by Federal Statutory Law, to a citizen who is an Applicant
`
`for Registration of a Trademark, to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit,
`
`if dissatisfied with a decision by the TIAB. This statutory provision gives all Applicants
`
`for Trademark Registration, whether represented by counsel or pro se, and whether
`
`persons of great wealth or persons who are humbly circumstanced, the status of citizens
`
`who have rights under the United States Code, and are therefore respectworthy.
`
`According to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 28, an Appellant is
`
`In Re Prema Jyothi Light, Case #'s 14-1597 & 14-1598,
`Petition For Panel Rehearing, 2016-10-11.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1:
`
`Document: 70-1 Page: 2
`
`Fi
`
`10/11/2016
`
`allowed to submit two main Briefs, an Appellant's Brief (to which the Appellee may
`
`respond with a Response Brief), and an Appellant's Reply Brief, in which she may
`
`respond to the Appellee's Response Brief.
`
`However, her right to submit Reply Briefs was unfairly abrogated by Court
`
`Orders, as described hereinbelow. This was in conflict with well-established Federal
`
`Law, as stated in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules 28 and 32.
`
`Therefore, in order to correct this, Appellant Light should be allowed to submit
`
`her Reply Briefs, under F.R.A.P. Rules 28 and 32, and she requests a three-month
`
`extension of time in which to do this. She also again requests Extended Briefing, for
`
`good cause shown.
`
`Here is a quick summary of some of the Motions and Orders involved.
`
`On 2015-05-22, AppeUee USPTO moved for an extension of time to file their
`
`Appellee's Response Briefs, citing their heavy workload and competing deadlines in
`
`other litigation matters, and other similar related reasons.
`
`On 2015-05-22, the same day, the Court granted this extension of time.
`
`On 2015-06-26, Appellee USPTO moved for an extension of time to file their
`
`Appellee's Response Briefs, citing the same reasons.
`
`On 2015-07-13, the Court granted this extension of time.
`
`On 2015-07-24, Appellee USPTO moved for an extension of time to file their
`
`In Re Premo Jyothi Light, Case #'s 14-1597 & 14-1598,
`Petition For Panel Rehearing, 2016-10-11.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 14-lS
`
`Document: 70-1 Page: 3
`
`Fi
`
`10/11/2016
`
`Appellee's Response Briefs, citing the same reasons.
`
`On 2015-07-28, the Court granted this extension of time.
`
`The Issue of Extended Briefing. On 2015-08-27, Appellant Light moved for
`
`Extended Briefing for the Reply Briefs, requesting a length of up to 35 pages or
`
`14,000 words for each Brief, to the unusual complexity of the Cases, and the unusual
`
`length of over 12 years during which the Cases have been in progress, and requesting
`
`an extension of time in which to complete the Reply Briefs, stating:
`
`"The issues and controversies in these Cases are more numerous, and more
`complex, than the average Trademark registration dispute, and therefore more
`space is needed, to clearly delineate the issues and arguments for the Court's
`review and proper consideration."
`
`On 2015-09-16, the Court granted the extension of time, but denied the motion
`
`for Extended Briefing, stating, "Ms. Light has not shown extraordinary reasons why
`
`she needs additional words in her reply briefs."
`
`However, how many Trademark Registration Cases has this Court reviewed,
`
`which have been in litigation within the USPTO for over twelve years? This is
`
`obviously extraordinary.
`
`TWelve years is more than the length of time coYered by World War I and
`
`World War II. combined.
`
`How many Trademark Registration Cases has this Court reviewed, which have
`
`In Re Prema Jyothi Light, Case #'s 14-1597 & 14-1598,
`Petition For Panel Rehearing, 2016-10-11.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 14-lE
`
`Document: 70-1 Page: 4
`
`Fi
`
`10/11/2016
`
`over 3,000 pages of legal paperwork on the Record with the USPTO, preceding the
`
`Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit? This is obviously
`
`extraordinary, too, especially if a few extra pages in the Reply Briefs can save the
`
`Judges from having to review thousands of earlier pages from the Records.
`
`On 2015-11-09, AppeUant Light filed a Motion for issuance of a new Order
`
`allowing longer Reply Briefs; for reversal of denial of exemption from PACER user
`
`access fees, which had become a hardship for her; for an extension of time to prepare
`
`her Reply Briefs; and "for leave to use the original record" in that she not be required
`
`to file many paper copies of her Briefs, because printing expenses, in addWon to
`
`messenger expenses, had also become a hardship for her, as an IFP pro se litigant.
`
`On 2015-11-24, the Court granted her an extension of time, but denied her
`
`Motion for Extended Briefing, and denying her other motions, supra, as well.
`
`In doing this, the Court was needlessly inflicting hardships on Appellant, as an
`
`IFP pro se litigant, without just cause.
`
`Reasons for Appellant Light's IFP Status. She had filed for, and received,
`
`IFP status for these Court Cases, due to a serious car crash which had left her with
`
`serious injuries, multiple surgeries, high medical bills, and resulted in her present -
`
`hopefully temporarily - humble finances. She has continued to be on crutches from
`
`these previous injuries.
`
`In Re Prema Jyothi Light, Case #'s 14-1597 & 14-1598,
`Petition For Panel Rehearing, 2016-10-11.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 14-1~ _ _ Document: 70-1 Page: 5
`
`Fi
`
`10/11/2016
`
`The Issue of interpreting F.R.A.P. Rule 24 (c ). This Court Rule provides:
`
`"A party allowed to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis may request that the
`appeal be heard on the original record without reproducing any part."
`
`Could chis allow for filing of only one paper copy of each Reply Brief, plus
`
`Corresponding Briefs on disk? Corresponding Briefs on disk could provide for really
`
`dear reproduction on PACER, for review by the Panel of Judges.
`
`There has been a continuing problem, throughout these Cases, with misconduct
`
`by Clerks, who are apparently deliberately uploading her pleadings into electronic
`
`records badly, to convey her beautifully-done pleadings and Specimens in a bad light,
`
`as detailed in her Appellant's Brief.
`
`If she lived closer to the Court, she could deliver the paper copies in person,
`
`although when she did personally deliver paper copies of her original Application to
`
`the USPTO offices, they still tried to wreck the way these documents looked, by
`
`uploading them badly into their electronic records, and even ditching some of them.
`
`The Court of Appeal Clerks have been guilty of similar misconduct, too, though from
`
`a distance.
`
`At a mstance, from Colorado, printing plus messenger delivery can be a
`
`hardship for a temporarily humbly-circumstanced IFP pro se litigant, who is currently
`
`IFP due to serious car crash injuries. The same is true of waiving PACER access
`
`In Re Prema Jyothi Light, Case #'s 14-1597 & 14-1598,
`Petition For Panel Rehearing, 2016-10-11.
`
`s
`
`

`

`Case: 14-15_ _ Document: 70-1 Page: 6
`
`Fi._ - · 10/11/2016
`
`fees, which do pile up. Appellant Light again asks that these requests (for waiver of
`
`PACER access fees, and permission to file single copies) be reviewed, and for
`
`issuance of better judicial decisions on these matters.
`
`The Issue of another extension of time needed due to additional injuries
`
`from an unexpected. weather-related accident.
`
`On 2016-01-21, Appellant Light had to again file for an extension of time to
`
`file her Reply Briefs, due to an injuries from unexpected accident in inclement
`
`blizzard weather, a serious slip-and-fall accident on icy and snowy streets, while
`
`already on crutches from previous injuries.
`
`On 2016-01-29, the Court granted her request for an extension of time, but
`
`stated that "No further extensions will be granted."
`
`However, healing from injuries cannot be mandated by judicial decree, and at
`
`the expiration of the time allowed, Appellant was still in distress from her unexpected
`
`injuries, in addition to previous injuries, and therefore she was unable to complete her
`
`Reply Briefs by th