This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one summary affirmance. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in trademark cases on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, while the other two come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.
Casarez v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)
Guadalupe Casarez petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”), which denied Casarez’s petition and upheld the United States Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) findings regarding its entitlement to collect an overpayment of Casarez’s Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) disability retirement annuity benefits. Casarez v. OPM, No. SF-0845-19-0563-I-1, 2024 WL 2815347 (M.S.P.B. May 31, 2024) (“Final Decision”); Casarez v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF-0845-19-0563-I-1, 2019 WL 4923761 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 1, 2019) (“Initial Decision”), R.A. 15–32. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re R.S. Lipman Brewing Company, LLC (Nonprecedential)
R. S. Lipman Brewing Company, LLC (“Lipman”) seeks to register the mark “CHICKEN SCRATCH” for beer. The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected Lipman’s application on the ground that the mark is likely to be confused with the registered mark “CHICKEN SCRATCH” for restaurant services (“the cited mark”). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) upheld the examining attorney’s rejection based on its findings that the cited mark is not weak, that the two marks are identical, and that the examining attorney’s evidence established the relatedness of beer and restaurant services. In re R.S. Lipman Brewing Co., LLC, Serial No. 88209633, 2023 WL 3580372 (T.T.A.B. May 3, 2023), J.A. 1–25. We affirm.
Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC (Nonprecedential)
Michel Messier appeals the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition to cancel the registered fleur-de-lis design mark of the New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC (“Saints”). Because Mr. Messier lacks standing to bring this appeal, we dismiss.
Pereida v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Rebecca M. Pereida’s biological father was a Vietnam veteran; her biological mother is not. In 2019, Ms. Pereida, citing her father’s status as a Vietnam veteran, applied to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for benefits based on alleged disabilities of her own, made available by law to certain children of Vietnam veterans. VA’s relevant regional office denied the claim, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the denial. Secretary Supplemental Appendix (S. Appx.) 12–16. Upon Ms. Pereida’s appeal of the Board’s decision, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) also affirmed, determining in relevant part that Ms. Pereida was not entitled to benefits based on birth defects under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1811–1816—specifically, under § 1815—because those provisions expressly apply only to an “eligible child,” defined as a child of “a woman Vietnam veteran,” § 1811(1)(A). S. Appx. 1–6 (Decision); S. Appx. 7. In so holding, the Veterans Court acknowledged that Ms. Pereida asserted that the provisions impermissibly discriminate on the basis of sex, but it affirmed the Board’s denial of the benefits claim simply because “the law is clear as to which claimants are entitled to benefits” under the statute. Decision, at 6.
Ms. Pereida appeals, raising the discrimination issue expressly as a constitutional challenge to the statutory sexbased limit. The government does not deny the evident fact that Ms. Pereida’s sex-discrimination challenge in the Veterans Court was a constitutional challenge. But the Veterans Court provided no explanation for its rejection of the constitutional challenge, whether forfeiture or lack of Veterans Court authority or insufficient development or lack of merit or any other reason. We vacate and remand for the Veterans Court to address the issue.