His most famous case involves Google, where he claimed the right to the company’s name since its entrance into the dictionary as a verb, and was using the trademark for plastic exercise balls he most likely won’t be able to produce as evidence.

That may not make sense to you and it most likely won’t make sense to the courts either, but that’s par for the course considering Stoller is barred from litigating in northern Illinois.

On Monday, a judge had some colorful words for Stoller after finding in favor of Brett Brothers Sports International, Inc. and their right to the trademark STEALTH for use on baseball products.

"Were there a Hall of Fame for hyperactive trademark litigators" the US Court of Appeals said, "Stoller would be in it."

In this case, writes Judge David H. Coar, Stoller "filed an infringement lawsuit without evidence of any sales of baseballs or baseball bats to support its claim to rights in the ‘Stealth’ mark for such products. [His company] ignored requests to produce documents to support its claim, forcing the defendants’ lawyers to go to court to compel action.

"Stoller offered confused, misleading deposition testimony, with unfulfilled promises of cooperation. And the documents he eventually produced made a mockery of the entire proceeding. We have no trouble in upholding the award of fees and costs." 

Ouch.

Another judge, apparently a baseball fan, included in his opinion a link to the infamous "pine tar" incident:

The whole colorful episode is preserved, in all its glory, on YouTube, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cu1WXylkto

Not anymore though, notes Eric Goldman at Technology and Marketing Law Blog. That 7 ½ minute video has been stricken from the YouTube record upon request from Major League Baseball, and with any luck, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals won’t be nailed for contributory infringement.

With some more luck, Google will nail Stoller under federal racketeering charges.

Though Wikipedia notes the federal government placed Leo Stoller on a list of "vexatious litigants" in 2005 for repeated abuses of the legal system, Stoller describes himself as an "intellectual property entrepreneur." That means he sues people for trademark infringement – a lot.

One of Stoller’s more recent targets, through his company Central Manufacturing Inc., was Google. In a petition for cancellation of Google’s trademark, Stoller claimed that Google’s mark had entered to vernacular as a verb, giving him "common law" rights to the term.

He also claimed Google had infringed on his right to the mark, which Stoller said was being used for plastic exercise balls made by his company, and that Google had "mutilated" its own mark through dressing up the logo on holidays. The petition was recently dismissed by the US Patent and Trademark Office, but the decision is, of course, being appealed.

But a victory at the Trademark Office isn’t taking Stoller to task quite enough, as far as Google is concerned. The company wants Stoller’s alleged abuse of the system stopped for good and has filed suit against him and his companies for false advertising and unfair competition.

But also, and this is the big one, Google is seeking a judgment that Stoller’s companies are in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which can carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Rebecca Tushnet, law professor at Georgetown University, explains why Google is so aggressive in combating the most famous of so-called "trademark trolls":

[T]here’s no provision in trademark law penalizing false claims of trademark ownership, or even false claims to own a federal registration, in contrast to the rule for patents.

However, she doubts whether Google can make a claim for unfair competition under the Lanham Act:

If the relevant market is the market for licensing trademarks, then Google seems to be a consumer rather than a competitor. If, however, Stoller asserts rights in goods and services sufficient to give him standing to oppose Google’s registrations before the PTO, is he estopped from denying competition? My guess is not; noncompetitors can be operating in categories sufficiently related to justify oppositions, besides which Stoller’s oppositions have all been rejected.

Eric Goldman, whose cyberlaw and intellectual property credentials speak for themselves, sees Google as kind of a white knight in this case:

There have been many attempts to curb Stoller’s activities, but this lawsuit may be the most serious…

Google has the cash and mettle to challenge Stoller, they are sympathetic litigants, and they unquestionably know what it means to fight Stoller but chose to do so anyway. Should they succeed in their efforts, I think it’s likely that other trademark owners who are targeted by Stoller will follow suit.

On his blog, Stoller paints himself as a sort of victim struggling against major corporation – and a "nationally known legal ethics expert." Recently though, his ire seems more directed at Google attorney Michael Zeller, whom he accuses of professional misconduct.

Writing of himself in the third person:

This story has all of the drama of a major motion picture…100 billion dollar company, multi million dollars lawyers…against Leo Stoller….David and Goliath…now playing….

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews: