This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. All of the opinions are per curiam and come in pro se cases, two of which are trademark cases. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.
Dillon v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Sean J. Dillon filed a complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court). As now relevant, he alleged that he was improperly subject to a court-martial after he had been medically retired from the United States Army, causing him to lose retirement benefits, and he sought back pay consisting of the lost benefits. The Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dillon v. United States, No. 21-cv-02016, 2024 WL 3262822, at *5–8 (Fed. Cl. July 1, 2024) (Dillon CFC I); Dillon v. United States, No. 21-cv-02016, 2024 WL 3949062, at *1–2 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 27, 2024) (denying reconsideration) (Dillon CFC II). Mr. Dillon appeals. We affirm.
Vindiola v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Rigoberto M. Vindiola petitions for review of the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) denying his petition for review and affirming the dismissal of his claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 430135 (“USERRA”) for lack of jurisdiction. Vindiola v. Dep’t of State, No. SF-4324-19-0537-I-1, 2024 WL 4579503 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 24, 2024) (“Final Order”); see also Vindiola v. Dep’t of State, No. SF-4324-19-0537-I-1, 2019 WL 3889346 (M.S.P.B. Aug 13, 2019) (“Initial Decision”), R.A. 13–31.1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Duraisamy (Nonprecedential)
Nagarajan Duraisamy appeals from a decision of the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register Mr. Duraisamy’s mark for failure to provide an acceptable and definite identification of goods and services along with the appropriate filing fees for the number of registration classes sought. In re Duraisamy, No. 97829921, 2024 WL 3026008 (T.T.A.B. June 4, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In re Duraisamy (Nonprecedential)
Nagarajan Duraisamy appeals from a decision of the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register Mr. Duraisamy’s mark for failure to provide an acceptable entity designation, description of the mark, and identification of goods and services. In re Duraisamy, No. 97552142, 2024 WL 3025989 (T.T.A.B. June 4, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.