Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ARNES BECIROVIC,
Appellant
______________________
2022-1353
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
88671022.
______________________
Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Having considered the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO)’s “Notice of Non-Filing of Certified
List Due to Lack of Jurisdiction,” ECF No. 14, and appel-
lant’s response to that notice, ECF No. 19, 1 this court dis-
misses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On July 23, 2021, the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board affirmed the examiner’s refusal to register the mark
in Signa ES Karim Omega LLC’s application. Signa ES
1 Arnes Becirovic appears to be the executive officer
of Signa ES Karim Omega LLC, the named applicant in
this matter.
Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2022
2 IN RE: BECIROVIC
petitioned the Director of the PTO for reconsideration. On
November 18, 2021, the PTO issued a petition decision for-
warding the request to the Board. 2 The PTO informs the
court that the request remains pending. On December 27,
2021, appellant filed this appeal.
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B), this court has “exclu-
sive jurisdiction” over “an appeal from a decision of” the
“Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with re-
spect to applications for registration of marks and other
proceedings as provided in section 21 of the Trademark Act
of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1071).”
There is no final decision by the Board or the Director
for purposes of judicial review at present. The timely filing
of a request for reconsideration of the Board’s July 2021
decision rendered that decision “nonfinal for purposes of ju-
dicial review.” Odyssey Logistics & Tech. Corp. v. Iancu,
959 F.3d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386, 392 (1995)). The November 2021 decision of
the PTO is likewise not a final action. That decision merely
referred the reconsideration request to the Board, which
hardly “mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s deci-
sionmaking process.” Odyssey, 959 F.3d at 1109 (quoting
Smith v. Berryhill,
139 S. Ct. 1765, 1775–76 (2019)) (alter-
ation in original).
Accordingly,
2 The PTO’s decision initially stated that the Direc-
tor did not have authority to review final Board decisions.
On February 18, 2022, the PTO issued a corrected petition
decision clarifying that the rules do not authorize reconsid-
eration requests to be made through petitions.
Case: 22-1353 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 04/05/2022
IN RE: BECIROVIC 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
April 5, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
