Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 2014
Docket13-1541
StatusUnpublished

This text of Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc. (Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Case: 13-1541 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 03/19/2014

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MICHAEL J. CUTINO, Appellant,

v.

NIGHTLIFE MEDIA, INC., Appellee. ______________________

2013-1541 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Opposition No. 91186025. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________ ORDER Nightlife Media, Inc. moves to strike portions of Michael Cutino’s August 26, 2013 submission. Nightlife Media also moves for leave to file a corrected brief and for an extension of time to file a corrected brief. Cutino moves for “a 45 day extension on [his] Court date.” This court has not yet assigned any date to the hear- ing of this matter. Accordingly, it is unclear as to what court date Cutino is referring. Case: 13-1541 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 03/19/2014

On August 26, 2013, Cutino submitted his informal brief to this court along with a cover page and numerous exhibits. That submission contained documents that were not part of the record before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) and must be stricken. Additional- ly, in his informal brief Cutino makes reference to his registered mark NIGHTLIFE, registration number 1,908,411. However, the Board found that Cutino’s registration for that mark was not of record. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Cutino’s motion for an extension of a court date is denied as unnecessary. 2) Nightlife Media’s motion to strike is deferred to the merits panel assigned to hear this case. Copies of this order and the motion shall be transmitted to the panel. 3) Nightlife Media’s motions for an extension of time and for leave to file a corrected brief are granted. FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court s25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutino-v-nightlife-media-inc-cafc-2014.