Leo Stoller
Leo D. Stoller is an American self-styled "intellectual property entrepreneur" based in suburban Chicago, Illinois. Stoller claimed rights to a large inventory of well-known trademarks and engaged in the assertive enforcement of those alleged trademark rights, threatening infringement action against people and companies who attempt to use similar marks.
Though he managed to obtain license payments in some circumstances through demand letters, Stoller lost some key challenges in federal court, and was sanctioned by United States regulators for filing thousands of motions. A federal court labeled Stoller and his companies as "vexatious litigants" in 2005, and his bankruptcy filing from that year was converted to a liquidation in 2006 after the judge found Stoller's filing to have been made in bad faith. On August 8, 2007, the bankruptcy court approved the sale of Stoller's trademark assets to the Society for the Prevention of Trademark Abuse, LLC.
Background
Stoller's companies included Rentamark.com, Stealth Industries Inc., S Industries Inc., Sentra Sporting Goods U.S.A., and Central Manufacturing Company. Through these companies, Stoller has registered trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for over 25 years including Stealth, Sentra, Dark Star, Air Frame, Triana, Stradivarius, Havoc, Chestnut, Trillium, White Line Fever, Fire Power, Love Your Body, and many others.Stoller has filed oppositions to others' trademark applications with the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board numerous times, and filed applications for extension of the deadline to file such oppositions even more times. Stoller claims a number of large and small companies have resolved trademark controversies. When approaching infringers, Stoller is reported to document his claims with copies of letters which demonstrate capitulation with his demands. Such letters are said to be from companies such as K-Mart, and often marked "Confidential".
A list of thousands of proceedings involving Leo Stoller and his companies can be found in the USPTO site.
Articles about Stoller have appeared in The New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times. He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and interviewed on Fox News, CBS News and talk radio programs.
Notable litigation
9/11 charity charges
In August 2002 the Illinois Attorney General filed suit against Stoller for illegally soliciting funds on behalf of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks via his web site giveagiftonline.com. Twelve charities Stoller listed said they never received any money from Stoller, despite assurances on the site that "100 percent of all donations" would be forwarded. He was accused of not being a licensed charitable organization and listing charities without their permission. Stoller paid a $2,000 fine and was barred from soliciting for charities in Illinois, but made no admission of wrongdoing.Trademark litigation
''S Industries, Inc. v. Centra 2000''
In 1996 S Industries, Inc. filed suit alleging that Centra 2000, a producer of data management software, infringed its/Stoller's "Sentra" trademark in violation of the Lanham Act. District Judge George W. Lindberg ruled in favor of Centra 2000, finding that S Industries did not hold a federal registration for the "Sentra" mark for use on computer hardware or software. Because S Industries' claims were, in the judge's view, completely unfounded and because its procedural maneuvering multiplied the cost of defending against the suit, Centra 2000 was awarded attorney's fees in July 1998. This was affirmed on appeal.''Columbia Pictures v. Stoller''
When Columbia Pictures brought out the 2005 movie Stealth, Stoller attempted to force the movie studio to change the name of the movie or pay him royalties, but the studio responded by suing Stoller for declarative relief. The court entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Columbia Pictures and against Stoller in November 2005. In December 2006, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Stoller's counterclaims, and the case was closed in January 2007.''Central Manufacturing Co. v. Brett''
A case decided by summary judgment on September 30, 2005, Central Manufacturing Co. v. Brett, pitted a Stoller-owned company against Hall-of-Fame baseball player George Brett, whose company, Brett Brothers Sports International Inc., sells a bat under the name "Stealth". It was alleged in this case that the use of that name infringed upon Stoller's trademark rights.In its decision, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois determined that there was no likelihood of confusion where consumers would mistakenly regard Brett's bats as being from Stoller's company. The court also found that Stoller failed to provide adequate proof that his company and its licensees had even sold baseball-related merchandise at all. The court found likelihood of confusion in the opposite direction, found Brett's trademark rights to be senior, and hence canceled Stoller's registration. In the decision, the court described Stoller's tactics and enumerated dozens of unsuccessful infringement cases he had brought in that court.
Chief Judge Charles P. Kocoras from the Northern District of Illinois then issued a citation to Stoller after reviewing his "filing history" having filed at least "49 lawsuits in this court, individually or through one of his many wholly owned corporations". "The Executive Committee in its capacity as the supervisor of the assignment of cases, has directed that Leo Stoller inform this court of any claim by him why the Executive Committee should not impose reasonable and necessary restraints upon Mr. Stoller's ability to file civil cases in this District." After a thorough review of Leo Stoller's entire filing history the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois issued a decision stating that "the committee will take no further action in this matter."
On July 9, 2007, in an opinion that opened with a laudatory description of the George Brett "Pine Tar Incident", the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, including the order for Stoller to pay Brett's attorney fees.
''Central Mfg. Co. v. Pure Fishing, Inc.''
Stoller and the "Central Mfg. Co. " sued a fishing tackle company, Pure Fishing, Inc. in February 2005 in Illinois for selling Spiderwire Stealth fishing line. Pure Fishing denied infringement and counterclaimed alleging that Stoller's trademark business violated various state and federal laws against unfair business practices. Pure Fishing also acquired and asserted in another counterclaim the unsatisfied 1998 sanction judgment that had been awarded to Centra 2000 against Stoller's S Industries, Inc. Pure Fishing also showed that Stoller had signed his attorney's name to pleadings that were filed with the court. Stoller's case was dismissed with prejudice and default judgments entered against all corporate defendants for lack of prosecution and against Stoller as a sanction under Rule 11.During Stoller's 2006 bankruptcy proceedings, Pure Fishing went back to the district court for entry of a Final Judgment. On October 4, 2006, a federal court in Chicago entered final judgment in Central Mfg. Co., et al. v. Pure Fishing, Inc., et al. The Court declared the case to be "exceptional" under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and ordered Central Mfg. to pay Pure Fishing’s costs, charges and disbursements, including a reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in the action. The court further ordered that Stoller and his companies were "vexatious litigants" and barred them "from instituting any lawsuit or trademark opposition without prior leave of this Court pursuant to this Court’s authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651." The court also cancelled the marks asserted in the Complaint. Stoller filed a Notice of Appeal from the October 4 judgment and has moved to stay the enforcement of the said judgment pending the appeals.
On December 12, 2006, the Court entered judgment in favor of Pure Fishing, Inc. in the total amount of $969,751.81.
Target and Google trademark claims
Stoller filed an opposition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in April 2006 to the Target Stores bullseye logo.In 2006, Stoller filed an opposition to Google's attempt at registering a trademark to the name "Google" in the category of exercise balls. Stoller claims that the "Google" mark has become generic, yet also claims that it infringes on prior alleged rights to the name held by Stoller's company. The case against the Google mark, however, was dismissed with prejudice at the instigation of Stoller's trustee in bankruptcy, who is empowered to take action in all cases in which Stoller and his companies are involved. Subsequently, on January 19, 2007, Google filed a suit against Stoller's companies alleging violations of the anti-racketeering RICO law.
On April 2, 2008 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of Google, on the ground that the case had been pursued using contradictory principles, both treating those companies as extensions of Stoller himself, and as separate legal entities. The case was remanded to the lower court for further action. The court noted, however, that Stoller remained subject to an order "directing that all federal courts in return unfiled any papers he submits directly or indirectly unless and until he pays a $10,000 fine we imposed against him in August 2007," and "he will have to pay the outstanding sanction or, as a practical matter, face certain default."