Source: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/12/13/only-expenses-not-attorney-fees-section-21b-lanham-act/id=63840/
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 10:33:13
Document Index: 102888428

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 1071', '§ 15']

Only 'Expenses' Not 'Attorney Fees' Should Be Awarded Under Section 21(b) of the Lanham Act - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law
On December 1, 2015, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed an amicus brief in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Shammas v. Hirshfeld, No. 15-563. Dorothy Auth, President of the NYIPLA, Charles R. Macedo and David Goldberg of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, Charles E. Miller of Eaton & Van Winkle, LLP, Robert Isackson of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Pina M. Campagna of Carter, DeLuca, Farrell & Schmidt LLP, Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme of Pryor Cashman, LLP, Melvin Garner of Leason Ellis LLP and David Ryan were authors on the brief. Charles R. Macedo, Irena Royzman and David Ryan are Co-Chairs of NYIPLA’s Amicus Briefs Committee and Robert Isackson is the NYIPLA Board Liaison.
In the brief, the NYIPLA asks the Court to grant the petition “in this case in order that the Court may provide uniform guidance to the lower federal courts as to the correct interpretation” of Section 21(b) of the Lanham Act.
The following are excerpts taken from the NYIPLA’s brief.
Section 21 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1071) provides trademark applicants who are dissatisfied with certain decisions made by the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) regarding their U.S. Trademark Applications with two options:
Under Section 21(a), they may appeal the unfavorable decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a); or
Under Section 21(b), they may appeal the decision de novo to a U.S. district court. 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b).
Congress provided applicants with the ability to appeal to the district courts primarily to afford them the option of providing new evidence in a trial court. See CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 673 (7th Cir. 2001).
The Petition presents a question of exceptional importance to brand owners seeking to avail themselves of the advantages of federal trademark registration:
Whether the requirement in Section 21(b)(3) of the Lanham Act, that “unless the court finds [them] to be unreasonable, all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the party bringing the action,” 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(3) (emphasis added), was misconstrued by the Court of Appeals to include the salaries of the PTO’s in-house legal and paralegal employees as “attorney fees?”
The NYIPLA respectfully submits that the Fourth Circuit’s decision to include these salaries contravenes the meaning of the Lanham Act, violates the American Rule and, if allowed to stand, will discourage trademark applicants from seeking warranted de novo reviews of flawed PTO decisions.
The Association respectfully submits that the decisions below to award the PTO its attorney fees under the guise of part of “all the expenses of the proceeding” is error which must be corrected by this Court. This error is further compounded by the award of non-out-of-pocket fees (e.g., employee salaries) in this case.
Section 1071(b)(3) does not expressly or implicitly permit the award of “attorney fees” to the PTO. Specifically, Section 1071(b)(3) states simply that
all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the party bringing the case, whether the final decision is in favor of such party or not.
By its express terms, the statute merely allows for the award of “expenses,” and not “attorney fees.”
As this Court explained in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, “[I]n 1796, this Court appears to have ruled that the Judiciary itself would not create a general rule, independent of any statute, allowing awards of attorney fees in federal courts.” 421 U.S. 240, 249 (1975). After discussing the progression of this nation’s rules regarding the award of “attorney fees” and “costs” in litigation, Alyeska explained “[u]nder this scheme of things, it is apparent that the circumstances under which attorney fees are to be awarded and the range of discretion of the courts in making those awards are matters for Congress to determine.” Id. at 262. Thus, Alyeska concluded that it was not for the Courts (even this Court) to allow for the award of attorney fees without express Congressional authority.
There are many examples of statutory schemes where Congress has, contrary to the American Rule authorized the award of attorney fees, as Alyeska explains. But in each case, Congress used the words “attorney fees” and not merely “expenses.”
Here, there is no express statutory authority to award “attorney fees”. The statute does not expressly state that “attorney fees” are also to be shifted, and the word “expenses,” in itself, does not clearly include attorney fees (let alone the non-out-of-pocket fees–e.g., employee salaries sought by the government as a party here).
Consistent with this Court’s longstanding practice as discussed in Alyeska, attorney fees should be shifted only if the underlying fee-shifting statute expressly indicates and unequivocally states that expenses or costs include such fees. Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1985); Utility Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Co-op, Inc., 298 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). That is simply not the case here. 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(3).
If the Section were construed to include attorney fees as advocated by the PTO, then because the expense shifting provision is agnostic as to the prevailing party, it could lead to the fundamental absurdity of requiring the winner in a civil action to pay for the losing side’s lawyers. In contrast, there is no absurdity in construing the Section to exclude attorney fees, because it is logically consistent that Congress would condition a trademark applicant’s right to an appeal under § 1071(b)(1) that allows additional discovery on paying the PTO’s expenses associated with that incremental discovery, which incremental expenses would not be incurred in a Federal Circuit appeal under § 1071(a)(1), yet in either case the PTO would be responsible for its attorney fees.
Furthermore, unless the term “expenses of the proceeding” can be read to include “attorney fees,” the panel majority’s reliance upon “all” must be deemed misplaced. Since attorney fees cannot in fact be contemplated by terms like “expenses of the proceeding” or “cost of suit,” the focus upon “all” adds nothing. Indeed, where Congress wishes to include attorney’s fees within such a term, it has known since 1914 exactly how this can be accomplished and expressed.
Thus, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, explicitly provides that any person injured “by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws” may sue for recovery of “threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
A Writ of Certiorari should issue to correct the injustice arising from the erroneous construction of “all the expenses” below.
Tags:Attorneys Fees, expenses, Lanham Act, New York Intellectual Property Law Association, NYIPLA, SCOTUS, trademark, trademark law, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, trademarks, ttab, US Supreme Court
Archives Select Month October 2019 (47) September 2019 (68) August 2019 (71) July 2019 (59) June 2019 (62) May 2019 (77) April 2019 (64) March 2019 (68) February 2019 (66) January 2019 (72) December 2018 (61) November 2018 (68) October 2018 (83) September 2018 (71) August 2018 (69) July 2018 (68) June 2018 (69) May 2018 (102) April 2018 (93) March 2018 (99) February 2018 (101) January 2018 (104) December 2017 (79) November 2017 (90) October 2017 (103) September 2017 (106) August 2017 (110) July 2017 (90) June 2017 (116) May 2017 (102) April 2017 (102) March 2017 (104) February 2017 (99) January 2017 (120) December 2016 (96) November 2016 (80) October 2016 (99) September 2016 (84) August 2016 (87) July 2016 (82) June 2016 (94) May 2016 (83) April 2016 (81) March 2016 (88) February 2016 (73) January 2016 (83) December 2015 (73) November 2015 (71) October 2015 (66) September 2015 (67) August 2015 (73) July 2015 (58) June 2015 (56) May 2015 (51) April 2015 (64) March 2015 (73) February 2015 (63) January 2015 (61) December 2014 (63) November 2014 (46) October 2014 (53) September 2014 (48) August 2014 (42) July 2014 (46) June 2014 (46) May 2014 (52) April 2014 (52) March 2014 (55) February 2014 (41) January 2014 (48) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (38) October 2013 (40) September 2013 (40) August 2013 (34) July 2013 (46) June 2013 (62) May 2013 (46) April 2013 (52) March 2013 (60) February 2013 (58) January 2013 (76) December 2012 (56) November 2012 (53) October 2012 (56) September 2012 (36) August 2012 (42) July 2012 (49) June 2012 (44) May 2012 (36) April 2012 (38) March 2012 (44) February 2012 (33) January 2012 (34) December 2011 (28) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (36) September 2011 (39) August 2011 (30) July 2011 (33) June 2011 (36) May 2011 (41) April 2011 (45) March 2011 (40) February 2011 (40) January 2011 (42) December 2010 (31) November 2010 (41) October 2010 (35) September 2010 (33) August 2010 (34) July 2010 (34) June 2010 (38) May 2010 (31) April 2010 (31) March 2010 (40) February 2010 (34) January 2010 (29) December 2009 (43) November 2009 (33) October 2009 (44) September 2009 (37) August 2009 (35) July 2009 (37) June 2009 (35) May 2009 (34) April 2009 (34) March 2009 (32) February 2009 (22) January 2009 (34) December 2008 (26) November 2008 (25) October 2008 (8) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (6) July 2008 (3) June 2008 (5) May 2008 (5) April 2008 (12) March 2008 (4) February 2008 (14) January 2008 (11) December 2007 (4)