In Re BECIROVIC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 22-1353
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: ARNES BECIROVIC, Appellant ______________________

2022-1353 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 88671022. ______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Having considered the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)’s “Notice of Non-Filing of Certified List Due to Lack of Jurisdiction,” ECF No. 14, and appel- lant’s response to that notice, ECF No. 19, 1 this court dis- misses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On July 23, 2021, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s refusal to register the mark in Signa ES Karim Omega LLC’s application. Signa ES

1 Arnes Becirovic appears to be the executive officer of Signa ES Karim Omega LLC, the named applicant in this matter. Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022

2 IN RE: BECIROVIC

petitioned the Director of the PTO for reconsideration. On November 18, 2021, the PTO issued a petition decision for- warding the request to the Board. 2 The PTO informs the court that the request remains pending. On December 27, 2021, appellant filed this appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B), this court has “exclu- sive jurisdiction” over “an appeal from a decision of” the “Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with re- spect to applications for registration of marks and other proceedings as provided in section 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1071).” There is no final decision by the Board or the Director for purposes of judicial review at present. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration of the Board’s July 2021 decision rendered that decision “nonfinal for purposes of ju- dicial review.” Odyssey Logistics & Tech. Corp. v. Iancu, 959 F.3d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995)). The November 2021 decision of the PTO is likewise not a final action. That decision merely referred the reconsideration request to the Board, which hardly “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s deci- sionmaking process.” Odyssey, 959 F.3d at 1109 (quoting Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1775–76 (2019)) (alter- ation in original). Accordingly,

2 The PTO’s decision initially stated that the Direc- tor did not have authority to review final Board decisions. On February 18, 2022, the PTO issued a corrected petition decision clarifying that the rules do not authorize reconsid- eration requests to be made through petitions. Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2022

IN RE: BECIROVIC 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 5, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court