Court Opinion

ID: 9411520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:19.568033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.262777
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1245      Doc: 13         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1245

        JOSEPH A. STALLARD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01236-LMB-JFA)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joseph A. Stallard, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1245      Doc: 13          Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joseph A. Stallard appeals the district court’s order granting the United States Patent

        & Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss Stallard’s civil action under the

        Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 to 559. Stallard’s action challenged

        § 1202.10 of the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, which provides

        examining attorneys with guidance on criteria for evaluating an application to register a

        character in a creative work as a trademark. Upon review of the record, we discern no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Stallard v. USPTO, No.

        1:22-cv-01236-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2023). We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      2