Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MILO SHAMMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHELLE LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Steffin, Armin Azod, Century City, California, Mark Baker, STEFFIN AZOD LLP, New York, New York; Carl E. Jennison, John N. Jennison, JENNISON & SHULTZ, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Freeman, Jaynie Lilley, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Christina J. Hieber, Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Milo Shammas appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment awarding expenses in this trademark action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shammas v. Lee, No. 1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Shammas v. Lee
(Mar 31, 2017)