If we didn’t have Leo Stoller we still couldn’t possibly invent him.
Originally posted 2013-01-10 16:01:04. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
The Stoller that lives under the bridge
You may also like:
9 Replies to “The Stoller that lives under the bridge”
Comments are closed.
I find it curious that Google didn’t name Stoller personally as a defendant (only his numerous company names and d/b/a’s). Any idea why?
Excellent question considering how very personal his “operation” is. I usually have to fight off clients who want to add personal defendants in infringement claims, which more often than not is just a power trip of questionable use in the case. But here it seems as if that would have been the way to go. But you know, Roberta, I have questioned the trademark ways of the Big G before.
Stoller was likely not named personally in the lawsuit for 2 reasons: (1) Stoller was (and still is) in personal bankruptcy so any suit against hime would need the approval of the bankruptcy judge. The complaint named actions that had occurred before the bankruptcy was filed (pre-petition conduct) by way of background, but that was likely enough to cause a dim view of the action against Leo personally: and (2) Stoller would be able to represent himself in the action and thereby lock Google into a never-ending escalataion of cost from meritless discovery, motions, appeals, depositions, etc. Why open up that profit drain where there is no additional relief or recovery to be had? The suit with the companies was handled by a settlement with the trustee in which Google gave up its monetary claims against Stoller’s bankruptcy estate in exchange for a stipulation and dismissal. It was artfully done by counsel for Google.
Lance has it exactly right as to why the companies were sued, without Stoller personally. The companies (and not Stoller individually) were the ones claiming ownership of the GOOGLE mark and had brought the sham proceedings in TTAB against Google. The District Court entered an injunction against the companies that barred them from bringing or maintaining any suit or proceeding or otherwise claiming rights to GOOGLE. That put a permanent end to the scheme. Going against Stoller would give no further relief, especially since he is in bankruptcy.
stollerexposed.blog.com
Just the facts:
On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court (First District) granted an order taking judicial notice that Leo Stoller had been deceptive.
The Illinois Appellate Court, on its own motion, also ordered that Leo Stoller show cause as to why he should not be held in Contempt of Court regarding sixteen appeals. The Court also ordered Leo Stoller to show cause as to why those appeals should not be dismissed.
The Illinois Appellate Court entered the orders in view of an earlier order entered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that order, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney to determine whether Leo Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury.
Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27037025/LEO-STOLLER-JUDICIALLY-NOTICED-FOR-DECEPTION
LEO STOLLER’S APPEALS DISMISSED EN MASSE
On March 15, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) entered an order dismissing several appeals filed by Leo Stoller. The matter came before the court on the court’s own rule to show cause why Leo Stoller should not be held in contempt and the appeals dismissed. In this order, the Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) noted that it had taken judicial notice of an order entered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the matter of In re Leo D. Stoller, No. 08-4240 (7th Cir., Dec. 4. 2009). In that order, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Leo Stoller had been deceptive and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for determination of whether Stoller should be prosecuted for perjury. The Appellate Court of Illinois (First Judicial District) also noted that Leo Stoller had filed a response to the matter before it on February 19, 2010, and that Leo Stoller had contradicted himself in his response. This order follows a long history of sanctions against Leo Stoller.
Several courts, of course, have noted that Leo Stoller’s “lack of credibility is a matter of public record.”
Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28694929/LEO-STOLLER-S-APPEALS-DISMISSED-EN-MASSE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT BANS LEO STOLLER
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) on April 26, 2010, Chief Judge James F. Holderman clarifies the effect of a December 4, 2009 order issed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the filing ban imposed on Leo Stoller.
The December 4, 2009 order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit banned Leo Stoller from further filings in that court– in what is commonly referred to as a ‘Mack’ bar– for engaging in deceitful behavior. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the Mack bar against Leo Stoller is to remain in effect until at least December 4, 2011.
In the Opinion and Order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Illinois, the Honorable James F. Holderman notes that the Seventh Circuit ordered â€â€˜the clerks of all federal courts in this circuit… to return unfiled any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by [Leo] [Stoller] or on [Stoller’s] behalf.’â€
Therefore, the U.S. District Court reasoned, the plain language of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Order requires that Leo Stoller be barred from initiating any new lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois, and that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois cannot permit Leo Stoller to litigate his claims in that court.
Read the document at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31292372/U-S-DISTRICT-COURT-BANS-LEO-STOLLER