This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed an examiner’s refusal to register a mark for failure to comply with the domicile address requirement. The nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.
In re Chestek PLLC (Precedential)
Chestek PLLC (“Chestek”) appeals from a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) decision affirming the examiner’s refusal to register the mark CHESTEK LEGAL for failure to comply with the domicile address requirement of 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(a)(2) and 2.189. In Re Chestek PLLC, No. 88938938, 2022 WL 1000226 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022) (“Decision”). Chestek challenges the procedural process by which the rules containing the domicile address requirement were promulgated. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Anderson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Patrick N. Anderson appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) remanding his claim for special monthly compensation (“SMC”) to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“board”) and affirming the denial of his claims related to right ankle arthritis and right hip bursitis. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss his appeal.