Is Famed Trademark Troll Leo Stoller Trying To Stealthily Reclaim Bogus Stealth Trademarks?

from the stealthy! dept

Back in 2005, we wrote about the rather crazy case of Leo Stoller, the “trademark troll,” who claimed incredibly broad trademarks on single words (sometimes through questionable means) and then tried to shakedown pretty much anyone who used those words for cash. The key trademark he claimed to hold was on the word “stealth” for “all goods and services.” Among those he demanded money from were Columbia Pictures for the movie Stealth, baseball player George Brett for selling a “Stealth” brand baseball bat and (my favorite) Northrup Grumman for making the stealth bomber.

One company he threatened, Pure Fishing, fought back hard. Just as he was about to lose, he tried declaring bankruptcy to protect himself, but after the bankruptcy judge found that his “filing contained bogus information and unreported assets,” the bankruptcy was converted into a liquidation, including not just Stoller’s corporate assets, but his personal assets as well. He was also barred from filing more trademark applications for a while. Following this, a trustee was appointed to liquidate his assets (including his totally bogus and made up claim to have owned a trademark on “Google” since 1981). In his fight against Google, he insisted that at the end, Google will “go out of business.” The court trustee dumped that claim pretty quickly. Oh yeah, the court also canceled 44 of Stoller’s existing and pending trademarks on “stealth.”

We hadn’t heard much about Stoller since then (though he did post a comment on one of our posts, saying that in the end he would “come out on top!”). However, The Trademark Blog points us to a report suggesting that Stoller is stealthily trying to get new trademarks on “stealth,” though he seems to be somewhat incompetent about it, and the USPTO isn’t buying it. Beyond the fact that the application processing fee check bounced, there are all sorts of problems with the Stealth trademark applications, not the least of which is that they don’t seem to show any real products, but instead show a bunch of other products with the word “Stealth” sloppily Photoshopped onto the image:

So, the examiner pointed out that it’s a problem that the examples of the use appear to be “digitally altered images of objects to which the mark has been added,” and is asking for multiple examples of the actual products for each class of products intended to be covered. She’s also a bit curious over the claim that the use of Stealth has been claimed to be in use by the entity applying for the trademarks since January 1981, but the company has only been around since 2007.

And what is the company? Why it’s the Christopher Stoller Pension and Profit Sharing Plan. It appears the USPTO is on to Leo Stoller, and not “fooled” by this new entity.

Applicant indicates that it occupies office space with Leo Stoller, that Leo Stoller does not own any stock/shares or interest in the entity Christopher Stoller Pension & Profit Sharing Plan Ltd, and that the date of formation of Christopher Stoller Pension & Profit Sharing Plan Ltd was on or about 2007. The examining attorney notes that although applicant indicates in its response that it merely occupies office space with Leo Stoller and that “he is NOT associated with this Applicant nor is Central Mfg Co., Stealth Industries, Inc., Sentra Industries, Inc., or any other entity that Leo Stoller was or is associated with,” the email address entered for confirmation of the submission of the filing is “LEO STOLLER,” ldms4@hotmail.com. It thus appears Mr. Stoller has some connection to the applicant by being named to receive confirmation of the filing. *** Applicant must indicate any position(s) held and title(s) used by Leo D. Stoller (e.g. officer, director, partner, managing executive, employee) in respect to the incorporated or otherwise legally formed entity Christopher Stoller Pension and Profit Sharing Plan LLC , and beginning and ending dates of such pension(s).

Yes, so, if you’re playing along at home, this attempt to (re?)register “stealth” trademarks by pretending to be someone other than Leo Stoller suffers from a bounced check, a claim of use that predates the company by 26 years, no evidence of actual products other than really weak Photoshop images and a claim to have nothing to do with Leo Stoller, despite the name Stoller, a shared office and the email address used was “LEO STOLLER ldms4@hotmail.com.” That’s not very stealthy, Leo.

Filed Under: leo stoller, stealth, trademark