This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,while the nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC (Precedential)
Fuente Marketing Ltd. appeals the decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to a trademark application filed by Vaporous Technologies, LLC. The Board dismissed Fuente’s opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion between Vaporous’s applied-for mark and Fuente’s registered X marks. We affirm.
Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Darin A. Jones applied for a position with the Department of the Navy, and the Navy tentatively selected him. But the Navy rescinded the tentative job offer upon receiving from Mr. Jones a copy of his most recent Standard Form 50 (SF-50), which indicated that, years earlier, he had been terminated from a probationary role at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mr. Jones filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging that the rescission was in retaliation for protected whistleblowing disclosures and activity in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9). In particular, Mr. Jones’s alleged protected disclosures and activities included (1) the submission of his SF-50 to the Navy, (2) an email he sent to the Navy’s relevant human resources (HR) official, and (3) his litigation of his termination from the FBI and whistleblowing asserted in that litigation.
After OSC closed its investigation, Mr. Jones filed an individual right of action (IRA) appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). A Board-assigned administrative judge (AJ) dismissed Mr. Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the full Board affirmed the AJ’s decision but with modifications to the AJ’s rationale. See Jones v. Department of the Navy, No. DC-1221-20-0630-W-1, 2024 WL 4589513 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 25, 2024) (Board Decision). Mr. Jones appeals, proceeding pro se (though he is a lawyer), as he did before the Board. We affirm.