# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meads v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_1768%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1986 - **Citation:** 476 U.S. 1160 ## Text : ( / ] g6°1729 Y | Supreme Court, U.S. ak & D No. ——— a IN THE DEC 11 1984 | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED: TATES t FOR THE TERM ENDING OCTOBER, i984 THE FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL: MORTON F. MEADS AS INTERNATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL; ROBERT ZLOMKE AS SECRETARY FOR THE AMERICAN PACIFIC OF THE FLYING TIGERS INTER- NATIONAL AND SMALL STOCKHOLDER AND SECRETARY OF THE FLYING TIGERS OJL CO. INC.; AND ALL THE MEM- BERS OF THE 20TH BOMBER COMMAND, 14TH AJR FORCE, i8TH AIR FORCE AND 5TH AIR FORCE WHO ARE MEM.- BERS OF THE FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL; AND CLASS ACTION FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THOSE ARMED FORCES’ ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE OF LIKE MIND; AND THE FLYING TIGERS OIL COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, . A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, THE HON. JUDGES KASHIWA, SKELTON, NIES, AND MARION BENNETT; THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD, THE COMMISSIONER OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE; THE FLYING TIGER LINE INC., BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR, ZAFMAN AND ERIC HYMAN, Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition with Declaratory Relief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ws (For addresses of counsels, see inside cover) \ MORTON F. MEADS (For and In His Own Behalf, PRO SE) International Commander FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL P. O. Box 1094, Manila, Philippines ROBERT ZLOMKE, PRO SE SMALL STOCKHOLDER AND SECRETARY OF THE FLYING TIGERS OIL CO. INC. P. O. Box 1094, Manila, Philippines FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL FRO SE 602 Roman R. Santos Bldg., Plaza Goiti, Manila, Philippines A. C. SORIANO 1050 Concepcion St., Ermita Manila, Philippines Attorney for the Flying Tigers Oil Company, Inc. VICENTE L. SANTIAGO 602 Roman R. Santos Bldg., Plaza Goiti Santa Cruz, Manila, Philippines Attorney for the Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. and The Flying Tigers International —_ a —_— QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the CAFC do the legal, moral and right thing when it denied the Motion to Intervene of the Flying Tigers International and its Inter- national Commander Morton F. Meads, and its Secretary for the American Pacific, Robert Zlomke, solely because they had not yet intervened in the PTO,’ TTAB? 2. Did the CAFC do the legal, moral and right thing when it refused to consider and rule on any single one of the violations of Constitutional Rights, Statute Law, Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure by and charges of corruption in the Patents and Trademark Office and Trademark Trial and Appeals Board in Appeal No. 84-602 and Petition for Certiorari/Mandamus, etc.? 3. Did the CAFC fulfill its legal, moral and judicial responsibilities when it failed to do what is cited in question 2 above? 4. Is it correct that the CAFC has no ju- risdiction over Appeal No. 84-602 and/or Unnum- bered Petition for Certiorari’ Mandamus’ Prohibi- tion Declaratory Relief consolidated with said Ap- peal and all the questions and issues raised there- in? 5. Is it legally and morally correct for the CAFC to excuse itself from considering and re- solving the Appeal 84-602 and the Petition for Certiorari/ Mandamus Prohibition Declaratory Re- lief filed by the Flying Tigers International, et al. on the claim that it has no supervisory powers ae ee over the Patents and Trademark Office when in fact it is the successor of the congressionally creat- ed Court of Customs and Patent Appeals specifi- cally charged with absolute judicial control and corrective authority over each and everything that the PTO’/Commissioner. TTAB does and fails to co? 6. Is it correct legally and morally for the CAFC to excuse itself from ordering by Mandamus the Commissioner/PTO/TTAB to comply with Statute Law and issue the Certificate of Regis- tration to Flying Tigers Oil (authorized by Flying Tigers International), that is entirely completed including publication, on the grounds that such Mandamus would circumvent a trial, when in fact it is precisely that Statute Law that bars a trial? 7. Is it legal, moral and right for the CAFC to ignore the obvious false designation and false use, after 1977, for the purpose of gaining unde- served credit, honor and attention, of the name and mark ‘Flying Tigers’ by the Flying Tiger Line Inc. — which is actionable by the CAFC on its fact because it deceives the public and therefore can be enjoined immediately? 8. Is it legal and moral for the CAFC to fail to consider and rule on all the questions and issues in Appeal 84-602 and/or the Petition for Certiorari/ Mandamus/Prohibition|/Declaratory Relief consoli- dated therewith despite the fact that the Appellee FTiger Line did not deny any of the material facts upon which the questions and issues are based? — Cc — 9. Is it legal, moral and right for the CAFC to guide Filipino In-House counsel, pro hac vice, of the Flying Tigers Oil and finally declare that he does not reach the standards of the CAFC while the subject of the complaint or appeal or Petition is the Untruthfulness and Unethical acts of Ameri- can counsel, and the illegal, Unconstitutional Acts of omission and commission of the PTO’ TTAB in so great quantity and degree that it constitutes corruption and necessarily carries with it an air or order of emotion in the least, which such condi- tions should normally invoke in the human being; and necessarily requires many pages to report, and including actual pinpointing of untruthfulness by Tiger Line’s counsels and Flying Tiger Line with documents to show this — while American Coun- sel only casts innuendos without Specifics and no documentation — and vet the latter is never rep- rimanded by the CAFC? 10. Is it legal, moial and right for the CAFC to push off on to the Supreme Court of the United States ali the issues and questions and violation of the U. S. Constitution and Federal Statute Law existing in appeal 84-602 on the Petition for Certio- rari Mandamus’ Prohibition’ Declaratory Relief and the questions presented in detail cited in the Ap- pendix of this Petition and also applicable to this petition, as essential consequences and part of these Ten Basic Issues or questions? 11. Is the PTO TTAB bound to honor and respect the issuance of prior registrations to the l'lying Tigers International and Flying Tigers Oil company by a foreign country, the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads? once 12. Can a commercial entity take over the name and mark of a Veterans Organization with- out its consent, legally and morally? 13. Some of the violations of the Constitu- tional Rights to Due Process and equal protection and Violations Of The Trademark Law and the Trademark Rules of Practice and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are enumerated herein; can they be committed by the PTTO-TTAB and the Flying Tiger Line with impunity and without review and correction by either the CAFC or The Supreme Court? 14. The Flving Tigers International is holder of Philippines Trademark Registration No. 32095 for the Mark ‘Flying Tigers International’ and Tiger Head logo design, in use over 20 years before the Flying Tiger Line started to imitate; and the Fly- ing Tiger Line started to imitate; and the Fly- ing Tigers Oil Company, Inc. is holder of Philip- pines Registration No. 33911 for the Mark ‘Fly- ing Tigers with tiger head logo design’ having used this Mark for more than 20 years before Fly- ing Tiger Line began to try to usurp and imitate; are Flvine Tiger Line’s registrations superior to those of Flying Tigers International and Flying Ti- gers Oil Company, or does first use by Flying Tigers Oil and Flying Tigers International and false de- signation by Flying Tiger Line dictate that Flying Tiger Line’s registrations be cancelled? TABLE OF CONTENTS ° Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................ a tod TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................. j tov SOR WO oot seis pues akhunie ce eakicn IT ns hc hl a a 40k waeees 1 a a woe oka E 1 Pa oe ns oe oe oe eens 2 STATUTES INVOLVED ,,................ 4 PE a cee ns cn acG ea wenueinces 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRITS . 23 ARGUMENT .......... elxxiii-clxxiv, 26, cxxili-cxlvii MANDATORY STATEMENTS .............. 26 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ............ elxxvii, 26 FILING OF PRINTED PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ROBERT ZLOMKE PETI- TION IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND PRO SE 27 ee Ay cel ict tee 27 MMEOTR TAP ian cwasacstaweeentaeewan 3 ENTRY OF APPEARANCES . elxvii-c!xx and clxxv-clxxvi APPENDIX i-clxxvili Peer Orr rT ere i-xxlil, ¢, 25, 29 Appendice B (Questions Presented in the ees Ps ae elxv, 25, 29, xxx Appendice C (Final Decision of CAFC) , .xxiv-xxvili, 1, 3, 21, 22, exxiv. exxxiii, civi.i, elxi Appendice C-1 (Order of CAFC dated Mareh 30, 1984)... ccc a, 2, 21. xxvii Appendice C-2 (Order of CAFC dated March 30, 1984) _............ a. 2, 21, xxviii Appendice D (Notice of PTO/TTAB Dated Tek 2 ee i eee 1, 3. 6. xxix Appendice E (Notice of PTO/TTAB Dated March 6, 1981) 3. 6, xxix S846 8 86 8648S) 64 4.4% 6.4.4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Appendice F (Order of TTAB Dated Sept. a | Ae eee a 1, 3, 6, 29, xxxi-xxxili Appendice G (Order of TTAB Dated July = ear 1, 3, 8, 15, 29, xxxiv-xxxviii Appendice H (Order of TTAB Dated De- cember 22, 1982) ........ 1, 3, 12, 13, 17, xxix Appendice I (Order of TTAB Dated June Bis BOP gn cen cd 1, 3, 8, 13, 15, 29, xxxix-xliv Appendice J (Trademark Law of 1946 as Amended) ........ d, 4. 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 23, xiv-l, exxv, cxxvi, ‘¢xXxx, exxxvili, exliv, exlvi, elv, elvi, clxvi Appendice K (Trademark Rules of Prac- tice) c. 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 19, 20, li-lxvi, exliv, exlv, exlviii, elv ee 4 4.4 @&.4 Appendice L (Quotations from the Law and the Constitution) ....., 3. 5, 22, 25, Ixvii-xcii (Quotations from the US. Constitution) ... ww. ccc ccee Ixvil-Ilxxiii Coe ee ee a oe 4, Ixxiv (18 U.S. Code 1001) .............. Ixxiv Re nc I ed 4, xxv (28 U.S. Code 1253) (38 U3. Come 1256) ........ + ik Se Snr on, 4, Ixxv + ge SE) | eee eee 3, 4, Ixxvi (28 U.S. Code 1292) .......... (28 U.S. Code 1338) .. 2. 4. Ixxvii. exlii, exliii (2B US. Come TGG8) . 2. ccc cic vk ncne 4, lxxvii (28 U.S. Code 1542) 3, 4, Ixxvili (28 U.S. Code 1651) .... 3, 4, Ixxviili, exxxviii, exhiil (28 U.S. Code 2072) .... 4, 26. Ixxix.elvi, elviii (28 U.S. Code 2101) (28 U.S. Code 2108) (28 U.S. Code 2106) 4, Ixxix, cxxxvi IXxx es «6 e-6 2s .-6.8 8.0.22 @ 8 6.8 484.84 6 3 UD FAS inte TABLE OF CONTENTS g Page (28 U.S. Code 2201) , . 3, 4, Ixxxi, cxxx, cxxxix ee Oe A i tee ead oe 2, 4, Ixxxi ce ie be cathe: PERE ER Se ner Ixxxil "ainsi sae Mie oereer Bic, ERE ORO CR eT IXxxli (3B U.S. Code 168)... . cn ciccccacnn 3, Ixxxil (42 U.S. Code 1981) ........ nen. 3, 4, Ixxxili (42 U.S. Code 1983) .......... 3, 4, Ixxxiii (Rules of Civil Procedure for the . United States District Courts) .... 1xxxiv- _ Ixxxvil, a. c, 3, 5, 6, 7. 9, 14, 23, 27, CXXV, CXXVii, CXxxviii, exli, cliv, elvi, elxvi . {Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure) .,..., 5, Ixxxviii-xcii Appendice M (Certified List from PTO/ TTAB) .. 3.5, 8 11, 12, 17, 19, xciii, exlv, exliv Appendice N (Pertinent Citations) |. xciii-cx, clv, elvi, elxvi Ss 6 4:4 6:0 6 O :O'O.6 8 AS 6 8: 8818 CS AR Ses 2 eS Appendice O (Letter frem U.S. Govt. Print- ing Office Dated December 14, 1982),, 12, exi Appendice P (Letter of U.S. Govt. Print- ing Office Dated December 14, 1982)... 12, exii Appendice Q (Letter from U.S. Govt. Printing Office Dated February 8, 1983) 12, . | exiii-exiv Appendice R (Letter Dated October 4, 1961 from Trans World Airlines to Morton F. Meads, International Commander, Fly- ing Tigers International) .......... Cxiv Appendice S (News Item from Philippine Evening News Dated June 3, 1972 about Pepe Teen GU wiv cc ccwnse cance CXV Appendice T (News Item from Philippines Bulletin Dated January 11, 1984 about Rep. of Morac-Songhrati-Meads) .... exv-exvi Appendice U (News Item from Philippine Times Journal Dated October 11, 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page about Flying Tigers Oil and the Rep. of Morac-Songhrati-Meads) .,..... cxvil-exviii Appendice V (Letter Dated Nov. 2 1984 from CAFC to Flying Tigers Oil Com- “ates LET ee ne ae CXiX-CXX, CXXXV Appendice W (Notice of Appeal Dated Oc- tober 20, 1984) ............ CXXXV, CXX-CXxXil Appendice X (Memorandum of Argu- SPS ie barat ee eee kes 26. cxxiii-celxvi se ibevzsnsreraaing ht COE De ee EE Ore exxiil Violation of Trademark Law .......... exlvi Failure to Answer Affirmative De- oS Se elii Registration in Foreign Countries ...... clv Violation of Substantive Right of Fly- ing Tigers Oil by Rule of CAFC ,... elvi Claim of CAFC Thai It Does Have Su- ales cenie? Lit sina sinc A EEE REERET CREE Completion of Evidence In Chief by Flying Tiger Line In PTO/TTAB .., elvili Fa!se Designation by = lying Tiger Line elviiil er eee ts tied Wie aicn ca ee clix Registration by Republic of Morac-Song- hrati-Meads clx Attacks on Filipino Counsel of Flying Tigers Oil Co. Ine. (Discrimination against Filipino Counsel by Amer- voc kab eek clx Problems of Unclear and Contradictory NS ree tr ogc ok en elxii Adoption of All Questions Presented In CAFC (Subsidiary Questicns) .... elxv Many Questions Presented Explain Themselves as Violations of The Constitution or Trademark Law or a ahem asec Ol Baia enon sna Nama ae TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page Federal Rules of Civil Proce- a are er a ara alert elxvi Appendice Y (Entry of Appearance by Morton F. Meads. Robert Zlomke and Flying Tigers International) _.... elxvii-clxviil Appendice Z (Entry of Appearances by Attys. A. C. Soriano and Vicente L. con. eR Aaa ORAL eG clxix-clxx Appendice AA (Proof of Service) ,. 26, clxxi-clxxii Appendice BB (Sworn Statement of Mail- ing on January 4, 1985) _.... 26. clxxili-clxxiv Appendice CC (Entry of Appearance by Aity. V. L. Santiago for Flying Tigers International if Supreme Court Will Not Allow Morton F. Meads to Represent Flying Tigers International) clxxv-celxxvi Appendice DD (Sworn Statement by Atty. Vicente L. Santiago of Mailing on January 4, 1985 ¢lxxvii-clxxviii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Abbott v. Brown. Fla. 1916. 36 S. Ct. 689, 241 U.S. 606, 60 L. Ed. 1199 elvil Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 1937, 57 S. Ct. 461. 463. 300 U.S. 227, 239, 81 L.E. 617, Quoting From Re Pacific By. Comm., C.C.D. Cal, 1887, 32 F. 241, 255) .......... CxXVlii, Cxxix American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W.R. Co. 1893, 13 S. Ct. 758. 763. 148 US. 372, 384, 37 L. Ed. 486 . ow... eee eee American Graphophcene Co. vy. National Phono- graph Co. C.C.N.Y. 1904, 127 F. 349 elvii ss &-S, Se e@ © Amos Treat & Co. v. Securities and Exchange j TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Commission, 1962, 306 F. 2d 260, 113 US. On cnc ndtcbens eee xcili American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Intei bcrough Rapid Transit Co. D.C.N.Y. 1932, 1 Oe OO nes ec en ns oS eee Baltimore Contraciors, Inc. v. Bedinger, 348 U.S. ciii, elvii Bue, sem Geeeee . wo i oa hee xevl, exllil Bank of United States v. White, Ohio 1834, 33 U.S. 262, 8 L. Ed. 938 elvii Barber-Colman C. v. Overhead Door Corporation, 1233, 65 F. 2d 147, 20 C.C.P.A. Patents Beem 4 sa ee eee ee ee cix Barron vy. Locke, D. C. 1850, 2 Fed. Case No. SOME . £04 iaeeds SOS eee ev, clvii Beck v. Washingtcn, 1962, 82 S. Ct. 955, 369 Us. 641, 664, 8 L. Bd 2a 8... ice ces CXXxvil Bell v. Hocd, 327 U.S. 678. 684 (1946); 403 US. Wee GOWER oa s Cue e cd tee ci Bendix Aviaticn Corp. v. Glass, C.A. Pa. 1982. 95 F. 2d 267, 38 A.L.R. 2d 356 ely, elvii Bi-Meta!lic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization. 239 U.S. 441 (1915), 1979 Annual Survey of Asnerwean SAG. . ok oa veaeueeee ¢c, ci, celvii Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 603 (1944) _...... cl Brown vy. Board of Education, 1952. 73 S. Ct. 1, 2, Oe, Om 3, 2 OF ee ee 8 oS eee CXXXV Burge v. Richardson, D.C. Ga. 1971, 321 F. PUR. OS a a be ox dve ensue eee XCiV Campbell Soup, Co. v. Armour & Co.. D.C. Pa. 1948, 81 F Supp. 114 Affirmed 175 F. 2d 795, certiorari denied 70 S. Ct. 88, 338 U.S. G7, O64 &. He. CIO oi ccivxcseeeeeee cx Carter v. Carter Coal Co. 1936, 56 S, Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238 80 L. Ed. 1160 CXXXV Chandle v. Houdebush, 1976, S. Ct. 1949, 425 : xevili, exl Swift & Co. v. U.S. C.A. 7, 1962 308 F. 2d a fOr ED pe me Eg are Nye eee . xelil Symons v. Roberts 1929. 30 F. 2d 566, 58 App LR Set ae ora ong rs Goer id op era ea evi, cli The Selt, D.C. Wis. 1872. 3 Biss 344. 21 Fed. oe Oe Lary aye yy arn ev. clvii Turner v. City of Memphis, 1962. 82 S. Ct. 805, 80 7. 369 U.S. 350, 358-354. 7 L. Ed. RT oe re Ce, lowe a ee Ney CXXXV Tutun v. U.S. 1926, 46 S. Ct. 425. 270 USS. eS ee ee ae Ree CXXXi Ullman. v. U.S. 1956, 76 S. Ct. 497, 350 US. 422. 100 L. Ed. 511 CXXXi ee ee ee ee oe oe a ha ie a U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 1944, 64 S. Ct. 1281, 322 U.S. 716. 88 L. Ed. 1557 CXXxil oe Le TABLE OF AUTHORITIES q Cases Page U.S. v. Banker’s Trust Co., 1935, 55 S Ct. 407, 410, 294 U.S. 240, 294, 79 L. Ed. 885 .... exxxv U.S. v. First City Nat. Bank of Houston, 1967, 87 S. Ct. 1088, 1094, 386 US. 361, 369- 370, 18 L. Ed. 2d 261 .............. CXXXl, CXXxil U.S. v. Florida East Coast Ry. 410 US. at SOE ee reek wk en ee ee ea ci U.S. v. Nixon v. 94 S. Ct. 3090, 418 U.S. 524, So See ee dee Se CXXX1V, CXXXV U.S. v. United States Dist. Court, 1948, 68 S. Ct. 1035, 334 U.S. 258 92 L. Ed. 1351 ..... CXXxil U.S. v. United Mine Werkers, 1947, 67 S. Ct. 677, 684, 330 U.S. 258, 269, 91 L. Ed. a ME ne Fe eet), CXXXivV, CXXXV Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Na- tural Resources Defense Council, Ine. 435 Wan OW GONOE gona evicck ka vktmeereea c Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 1980, 100 S. Ct. 826, 444 U.S. 620, 63 L. Ed. 2d 73 CXXXVi Washington-Southern Nev. Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. Pa. 1924. 44 S. Ct. 220, 263 U.S. 629. 68 L. Ed. 480 ......... cii Wasscn v. Trowbridge C.A. N.Y. 19€7, 382 F. 2d 807, on remand 225 F. Supp. 936 ........ XCiVv Weinstein v. Bradford, 1975, 26 S. Ct. 347, 423 U.S. 147, 46 L. Bd. 24300... . ce CXXX Whitney v. Dick, 1906, 26 S. Ct. 584, 202 USS. Re, GO be. Be, OD non wk cncucwt. CXXXiV Williams v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, 1933, do S. Ct. 431, 289 U.S. 36, 77 L. Ed. 1015 |.) exxxvi Wilson v. Delaney, 1957, 245 F. 2d 877, 44 CAA. ee De ek evi. cli Wilson v. Girard, 1957, 77 S. Ct. 1409, 354 US. 624,11 L. Bd. 2d 1604... we CXXXiV r TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page William Rogers v. International Silver Co. 1907, 30 App. D.C. 97 cx eee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee Windham v. American Brands, Inc. 539 F. 2d 1016, 1021 (4th Cir.) (1976) Revd on other grounds, 565 F. 2d 59 (4th Cir.) (1977) en bane cert. denied, 435 U.S. 968 (1978) ...... xcvi Word v. US., D.C. Ala. 19€3, 223 F. Supp. 614 XClv ee a ee ae ee ee ee ee ee ee oe rn a 2 Se ee ee ee ee Wyker v. Williamson, D.C, Ala. 1944, 55 F. a EE ree re a clvii Youngstown Shoet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. 1952, 72 S. Ct. 868, 348 U.S. 579, 96 L. Ed. Ses casa ckue eee eee CXXXIV, CXXXV CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES: Article I 8. cl. 8 Commerce Clause ,...., 4, 23, exxviil BMT BE nono kh 64 vi KK 4, 23, Ixvii, Ixix Article II] .......... 4, 23, iii, iv. vi, viii, x, Ixix-Ixxi, 5 6 ntadie cicdiawindee CXXVii, CXXvili, exxix First Amendment ,..... 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 28, 29, ii, iil, iv, v, vi, vili, ix, x, xi, xii, xiv, xxii, Ixxi, exxvi, he eh s+ he eee kota eee exli, exlvii, elxvi Fifth Amendment ...... 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 28, 24, 28, 29, ii, iii, iv. v, vi, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiv, xxii, Ixxi, cxxvi, CTC T Teer See re ee exli, exlvii, elxvi Fourteenth Amendment ,..... 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 29, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vill, ix, x, xl. xil, xiv, xxii, Ixxii- og Bs Fan et die Ixxxiii, exxvi, exli, exlvii, elxvi STATUTES: Civil Rights Act of 1866 ._................ 3, 4 Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 3. 4, v ee &.8-4°9.824064 664624 6 4 6 2 2 6 2 2 O78 Act of June 9, 1944, C. 239, 58 Stat. 272 .. exxxii The Rules Enabling Act. 28 U.S. Code Sec. 2072 cill re ; j TABLE OF AUTHORITIES s Page 62 Stat. 961, June 25, 1948 ..................... cii GS Stat. 104, May BA, 1DGD _ jg ww cccccccae cil Public Law 489, 79th Congress, Chapter 540, Approved July 5, 1946, 60 Stat. 49, 427 (Trademark Act of 1946 as Amended) 429, 431, 482, 433, 434, 436, 440, 441... 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 20, 23, iv, v, vi, ix, xii, xiii, xv, xvii, xxiii, xlv, exx, ¢xxvi, . (XXX, CXxxviil, cx'iv, exlvi, clx, clvi, elxvi UNITED STATES CODE: Oh Us ns can eae eet xcv, exli oS a ee ee ee) eo a wes CXXXil Oe I oe os ce a wae ae 23, | ie Sa Se SO OE cpa as babies eee clv ce ek SE OE aw awdacceesseeece ew cx Se ee Se i cace ees snc eee Ub eeuas 2 . ee ee ee OO One Ss 4, xlvi ) Bhs ta perc bie-seunnas tS OR EET TEER Tee 2 ee See Se ek OS ee ees 2 SP ee 8S eee eee 4, xlvi 15 U.S. Code 1063 _.. 2, 4, x, xlvii, ev, evi, cix, cli 15 U.S. Code 1064 |. 2, 4, xlvii, xIviii, evii, cix, clii aie ee | eee ae evii, cix, ex, clii 15 US. Code 1071 ...... iv, ix, xxv, cviil, civ, exl, exli, clii ae ee 9 ae Or re eee eae 4 NO oh a bs ce as aoa eee ee BD Sim AOD so ov aces hn adandeucens 3 er ea ee Oe... cs as ay en alae eee 3 : iS US. Cede LLI9 ............. 3. 4, xlix, exxxix | STATUTES: | ee ee rer .., 4, xlix i Rie ie > : en 3, 4, 1, ex | ih UR TA OR oes A 3, 4 oe See Se ROE ok Co x bce nee a aee cen 4, 1 ; 15 U.S. Code 1126(a) ..... .... 2... 2, 4, cxxxix j a ee t TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page ee ee er renee re 4, 1 ee ce te er he an a clv ee ee oa ha aes CXXX1X - : S0UL lee 4, Ixxiv Bee Wee Me nc vccncwnce 4, Ixxiv ee ee ee eee ae 4, Ixxv 28 U.S. Code 12538 ............. ... & ty, Rev 28 U.S. Code 1254 .......... 4. Ixxv, eXX, CXxxili 28 U.S. Code 1256 ................ 4, Ixxv, ¢cxx me Sa Ce ee 3, 4, Ixxvi 28 U.S. Code 1292 ..__ 3, 4, 25, Ixxvi, xevi, exlii, Re rere eee exliil 28 U.S. Code 1838 _.............. 2, 4, Ixxvii, cxx 28 US. Code 18438 .................... 4, iv, Ixxvii 2B US... Code 1642 «dd cece 3, 4, Ixxvili me Ue. COGe LOGE (dn gc ccccccttnwwn CXXVil 28 U.S. Code 1651 ,.. . 3, 4, iv, xxvi, Ixviii, exxxviii, Py AGT MAM Ranh exliil ee ee a cii, elvi 28 U.S. Code 2072 .._... 4, 26, vil, lxxix, ciii, elvi, elvili 8 ee i rn on oe elvi ae US. Code 3101 .............. 4. Ixxix, exxxvi 28 US. Code 2108 ........... Ixxx 28 US. Code 2106 .................. 3, 4, Ixxx 2B U.S. Code 2109 6d cca. CXxxill 28 US. Code 2201 .......... 3, 4. Ixxxi, exxxix 28 US. Code 2403 (a) .................... 26 rs os Vue oa gee x 2, 4, 1xxxi ee, Se cr OE ee Vee IXxxil | ee 3, Ixxvii GS UR. Cote BOGR 8g kc ikon ww ccc 3, 4, Ixxxiii 42 US. Code 1983 ............ 3, 4, 5, v, Ixxxiii 42 U.S. Code 2182 ; 8 4 2 ee, Se ee ee 42 US. Code 2459 (c) 44 U.S. Code 1510 SO O88 6446 666468 8 4 Oe 6 eS ae TABLE OF AUTHORITIES u Page RULES: TRADEMARK RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE PATENTS AND TRADEMARK OFFICE with Forms and Statutes 1976 — Ninth Edition, December 1976; Latest Revision May, 1979 ..._. 4. 6, 12, 14, 19, 20, xii, xiii, xv. xvii, li-lxnvi, exliv, exlv, exlviii, elv FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE .. 5, 6, 7. 9, 14. 18, 23, 27, i. ili. v. vi, viii, xi, xii, xiii, xiv. xvii, xli, Ixxxiv-Ixxxvii, civ, ev, cxxiv, Ste San te 8 Eo exxvi, exli, elvi, elvi, clxvi FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PRO- RO 5, Ixxxviii-xcii RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT (1980) ........ SECURE EE eC Ea ah G ek kes 5 i, CXxii-exxvi, CXXXvi MISCELLANEOUS: Se eg ecun xevi, exiiil a Re re eee c, ei, elvil Se SS. Ch. Ob EGDU-DGRR ggg kw cece CXXV1 370 US. at 542 and at 552 ........... exxvi, ¢xxvil ee Re hale! re ratw wh § Ce eich CXXvli 102 S. Ct, at 2874-2880-2881, 2893 — exxvii, exxvili ee ee oe a ca kcaseae exxviii Ow Gi ON ov nan hc eck cuk eu kanean CXxviii American Anti-Trust Review (24th) Randler |... cii 38 American Law Review 2d 356 ........ civ 160 American Law Review 1231 ........... ciii Annual Survey of American Law |. ae Roe xev, xevi, xcix, ¢, cl, cil 64 Columbia Law Review 1 .............. CXXixX 89 Columbia Law Review 1. (1972) Vandler Ce) cil 89 Columbia Law Review, 75 (1975) Re- { dish The Pragratic Approach to Appel- lability in the Federal Courts xev, exlil 2:4 6.8/4, % 58 93 43 37 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Harvard Law Review 160 (1985) “The Constitutional Status of the Court of Claims Harvard Law Review I, ‘Toward Neu- tra] Principles of Constitutional Law , Hardvard Law Review 40. ‘The Passive Virtues, The Subtle Vice’ Gunther Bickel] With Wechsler ............... Harvard Law Review 297, Brilmayer. The Jurisprudence of Article 1II: Pers- pectives on the “Case or Controversy” Requirement, 1979 Harvard Law Review 1698; Tushnet. The Sociology or Article III: A res- Page ponse to Professor Brilmayer, 1980 | cxxix, cxxx Harvard Law Review 1727; Brilmayer, A Reply, 1980 Iowa Law Review 432 (Certification the Proper Administraticn and Expe- dition of Judicial Business Tulane Law Review i44; Glidden v. Zdanok, Noted 1962 Virginia Law Review 185 (1974) Verkuil, Vermont Yankee. Death Knell Wisconsin Law Review 343 (1975). Bice. “The Limited Grant of Certiorari and the Justification of Judicial Review” , . “LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS” by Charles A. Wright, 1983 |... cxxx. exxxi, cxxxiii, cxxxiv “JURISDICTION” By Wright. Miller and Cooper CXXXVil CXXXiV, cCXxxvii, cxxxvili NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE TERM ENDING OCTOBER, 1984 THE FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL, MORTON F. MEADS AS INTERNATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE FLYING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL; ROBERT ZLOMKE, SMALL STOCKHOLDER OF FLYING TIGERS OIL CO. INC.; THE FLYING TIGERS OIL CO. INC., ET AL., Petitioners, We THE U. S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, THE FLYING TIGER LINE INC., ET AL., Respondents, ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION WITH DECLARATORY RE- LIEF TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL COURT PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ——— INTRODUCTION The Petitioners herein respectfully pray that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the final Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fe- deral Circuit dated October 5, 1984; and that Writs of Mandamus/Prohibition be issued to the CAFC same Court and to the Commissioner/Patents and Trademark Office/Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to Issue the ‘Registration of the sfer- vice mark of the Flying Tigers Oil Co. Inc. in its Application 86288, approved and published: and to dismiss Opposition 63,986 filed out of time and to cancel registrations 999,837, 969,394 and 1,004,930, inter ‘alia.’ OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the CAFC is unreported, Ap- pendice C of this Petition, pp. xxiv-xxviii, the opi- nions in the form of orders and notices of the PTO/TTAB are also unreported. The said orders in our possession are Appendices F, G, and I of this Petition, pp. xxxi-xliv. Notices and orders not in our possession and included by reference are indicated at Appendices D, E, and H of this Peti- tion, pp. xxix-xxx. These orders and CAFC deci- sion dated October 5, 1984 in our possession are also part of the Petition for Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prohibition/Declaratory Relief in the CAFC which was joined with Appeal 84-602 and is subject of the final Decision of CAFC. oval bane JURISDICTION This is an action to stop the registration of a servicemark of the Flying Tigers Oil Company, Inc. by the Flying Tiger Line Inc. in the Patent and Trademark Office and Trademark Trial and Ap- peal Board; and a Counterclaim (petition for can- cellation) for cancellation of registrations of the Flying Tiger Line by the Flying Tiger Oil Co. The Flying Tigers International has not yet intervened in the PTO/TTAB because it did not believe that that agency would do what it has done, but it did in- tervene in the CAFC, which intervention by it and two of its officers was denied. The Office of Patents and Trademarks has jurisdiction over the application for trademarks-servicemarks and regis- tration of same, and oppositions to registrations and petitions for cancellation of registrations, under 15 U.S. Code Secs. 1051, 1057, 1059, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1125 and 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1338 and 35 U.S. Code Sec. 1. However, Petitioners claim that the PTO/TTAB has no jurisdiction or authority over an Opposition to registration filed out of time, i.e. more than 30-days from the date of publication, without any written request for extension of time filed prior to the expiration of said 30-day period and without any certificate of mailing; and further claim that the PTO/TTAB is required by Statute Law to disregard and not give due course to the Opposition of the Flying Tiger Line. The Petitioners claim that the acts of commis- sion and omission by the Commissioner/PTO/TTAB, : | . 3 some of which are represented by orders and no- tices, violate Statute Law, the United States Cons- titution on due process and equal protection; the Fed. Rules Civ. Procedure; and the said orders and notices, which are in themselves violations; are dated February 13, 1981, March 6, 1981, Septem- ber 16, 1981, July 15, 1982, December 22, 1982, June 21, 1983. See Appendices D, E, F, G, H, I of this Petition, pp. xxix-xliv. Notice of Appeal to the CAFC was filed on October 26, 1983 accord- ing to Certified List, that court having jurisdiction of the appeal under 28 U. S. Code Secs. 1291, 1292, 1542, 1651, 2106, 2201; 15 U. S. Code Secs. 1116, 1117, 1119, 1121, 1122; and 35 U. S. Code Sec. 142. jb Apaliicpstne ATION. AN MES Ansett Sone? 9 Before the final Decision of the Court of Ap- peals for the Federal Circuit in Appeal No. 84-602 the herein Petitioners filed a Petition for Certio- rari/Mandamus’ Prohibition’ Declaratory Relief with the CAFC, which was not given separate due course, but according to the CAFC was resolved also in its final Decision dated October 5, 1984 and according to our information was joined with 84-602 in the CAFC. The CAFC had jurisdiction of said Peti- tion under 28 U. S. Code Secs. 1291, 1292, 1542, ) 1651, 2106, 2201; and 42 U. S. Code 1981, 1983, i 2182, 2459(c); and 44 U. S. Code Sec. 1510 and the | Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964. The final Decision of the CAFC denying said Appeal and the Petition for Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prohibtion/Declaratory Relief is dated October 5, 1984 and we believe was entered on Octo- 4 ber 29, 1984. Its basic premise is_ that it does not have _ jurisdiction. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was filed with CAFC on October 20, 1984, and that court informed us that appeal to the Sup- reme Court had to be by Petition for Certiorari, hence this Petition. The jurisdiction of this court rests on 28 U. S. Code Secs. 1253, 1254(1), 1256, 1292, 1651, 2101, 2106, 2201; and 15 U. S. Code Sec. 1122; and 42 U. S. Code Secs. 1981, 1983, 2182, 2459 (c); and 44 U. S. Code Sec. 1510; and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964; and Veterans Rights Statutes. There is no order for rehearing. There is no order to our knowledge granting extension of time te file Petition for Certiorari although Motion was filed by Petitioners in December, 1984 with the Supreme Court. There is no Cross Petition. STATUTES INVOLVED Among these are the United States Constitu- tion, Articles I, II, III, and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Trademark Law 15 U. S. Code Secs. 1057e, 1062a, 1063, 1064. 1111 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1125a, 1126g; the Trade- mark Rules of Practice of the Patent and Trade- mark Office With Forms and Statutes, 2.115, 2.145, 2.189, 2.116, Forms 4.17 verification, et al.; Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1964; 18 U. S. Code Secs. 241, 1001; 28 U.S. Code 211, 1253, 1254(1), 1256, 1291, 1292, 1338, 1343, 1542, 1651, 2072, 2101, 2106, 2201; 35 U. S. Code 1; 42 U.S. Code Secs. 1981, 5 1983; Rules of Civil Procedure for The United States District Courts, Rule 8 (c) (d), Rule 13 (a) (b), Rule 28 (c), Rule 55 (a) (g), Rule 56 (b), Rule 57; Federal Rules of Appellate Proce- dure, Rule 3(a)(c), Rule 4 (a) (1) (2), Rule 21 (a) (b), Forms 1, 3 are set out in full in Appen- dices ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, pp. xlv-xcii, infra of this Petition. STATEMENT The Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. filed an appli- cation for trademark/servicemark, Application No. 86,288. It was processed, approved, published and the 30-day period for filing oppositions after pub- lication had passed without anyone, including the Flying Tiger Line Inc. filing any opposition. Thus the FTigers Oil considers that it is mandatory upon the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to issue the Registration corresponding thereto. How- ever, instead of doing so, the PTO/TTAB accept- ed an Opposition 63,986 filed on January 5, 1981 without any request for extension by the Flying Tiger Line Inc., which is out of time considering that the publication was on November 18, 1980. Thus it is barred by statute. The proper proce- dure for the PTO to follow would have been to refuse to accept or deny said Opposition for be- ing out of time and inform the Flying Tiger Line Inc. that their only recourse is to file a Petition for Cancellation, for which there is no technical time limitation. Since the PTO did not do that but instead gave due course to said Opposition it violated the law and deprived the Flying Tigers EE OO EEE 6 Oil Co., Inc., of which Robert Zlomke is a small stockholder and secretary and with an interest to protect and safeguard and who is thus prejudiced in many ways by that illegal action, of equal pro- tection of the laws and due process guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. The same applies to the Flying Tigeis International who is a common law owner of the mark and name ‘Flying Tigers’ and Morton F. Meads as International Commander are also similarly prejudiced and deprived. Therefore, this is correctible by Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prohi- bition’ Declaratory Relief or Appeal, since the ac- tion/Notice’Order giving due course to said out of time Opposition is final insofar as the giving due course thereto is concerned. Thus it is appeaiable er actionable by certiorari and Extraordinary Writ. This initial unconstitutional and illegal Act/Or- der of the PTO arranged by the Flying Tiger Line Inc.’s lawyers started the PTO/TTAB down a long road of violations of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, violations of the Constitutional Rights of the Flying Tigers Oil and its stockholders to due process and equal protection of the laws and its constitutionally protected property rights, and consequentiy each and every one of its stock- holders, large and small, and any organization from which it obtained rights to use the name and mark ‘Flying Tigers’, such as the Flying Tigers Interna- tional, its officers and members. If the PTO/TTAB would not have committed this initial act in viola- tion of the Trademark Law and the Rules of Prac- tice in the Patents and Trademarks Office, almost all of the other violations and issues and questions eh ees). 3 er Slant haat in 7 raised before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and now before the Supreme Court would not exist. If the Supreme Court issues the Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition requested, or order CAFC or PTO/TTAB to do the same or the equi- valent, almost all other issues raised to the CAFC would become moot; and those that would not could be resolved on the merits by the CAFC. The PTO/TTAB stated that it would not con- sider any move to question the out of time filing of Opposition. Thus the Flying Tigers Oil Co. was compelled to answer. It filed a Counterclaim of Petition to cancel the registrations of the Flying Tiger Line Inc. and stated affirmative defenses of first use, false designation by the Flying Tiger Lime, out of time filing, estoppel, fraud on the part of Flying Tiger Line among many others. PTO/TTAB denied the applicant’s Motion to Dismiss and Opposer’s sham Motion for Summary Judgment by an order dated September 16, 1981, Appendice F of this Petition, pp. xxxi-xxxiii, but allowed the introduction of two new issues not con- tained in the Opposition by stating them in the order and requiring applicant to prove thera, thus placing the burden of proof upon FTOil which should be upon FT Line if it had included them in its Opposition, which it had not, and which per force were thus barred from the case both by the Federal Rules of Civ. Procedure and the out of time filing of the Opposition, the deadline date be- ing set by Statute Law. The TTAB also adopted a false statement of FTLine’s American counsel, 8 which it, the PTO/TTAB, knew was false being in possession of the original records of the appli- cation, and it refused to correct either the falsifica- tion of the FT Line or its own, thus tieing these two together even more firmly in their violations of Sta- tute Law and the constitutional rights of herein Petitioners to due process and equal protection. Flying Tigers Oil filed a Motion for Reconsi- deration, a supplemental answer with exhibits and affirmative defenses. The TTAB ruled these out by its order dated July 15, 1982, Appendice G of this Petition, pp. xxxiv-xxxviii. The Flying Tigers Oil filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the affirmative defenses in the original answer and the failure of FTLine to answer specifically many material averments of the FTOil, and failure to answer many other material averments at all. The FTLine did not file any oposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment of the FTOil. Not- withstanding, the TTAB denied the Motion for Summary Judgment of FTigers Oil motu proprio stating that it was not compelled to grant it be- cause the opposing party did not oppose it. This was done by Order dated June 21, 1983, Appendice I of this Petition, pp. xxxix-xliv. This outrageous favoritism is companioned with the removal from the record (as shown by the Certified List, Ap- pendice M of this Petition, pp. xciii, that pleading not being listed there) of the Pleading of FTigers Oil which itemized each and every averment of FTiger’s Oil that the FTiger Line and its counsel failed and refused to answer, which answer is man- datory. ; 9 The TTAB in its last order subject of appeal did not rule on the Flying Tigers Oil’s Motion for Leave to file Supplemental Answer or Amended Answer after it had previously claimed that it had denied the same because there was no Motion for Leave of Court, even while it was in effect allow- ing the FTLine to amend its Opposition through the sham-gimmick Motion for Summary Judg- ment. The Acts of Omission and Commisison of the PTO/TTAB prior to, in between and after the is- suance of said orders, and also embodied in those orders, were appealed as violations of the constitu- tional rights of the FTOil to due process and equal protection, and violations of the Trademark Law, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cons- tituting prohibited discrimination, which is imme- dately appealable to the CAFC and/or the Supreme Court. Some of these Acts of Omission and Commis- sion constituting the aforecited violations are: (A) Giving due course to an opposition filed out of time in violation of statute (not subject to extension as a court has discretion to extend with- out a request) which prescribes exactly 30 days from date of publication unless a written request for extension of time is filed prior to expiration of the 30-day period. None was filed. (B) The PTO acting motu proprio for the benefit of the FTiger Line even though the latter made no written request for extension of time as 10 required by the Trademark Law gave due course to the opposition of FTLine. (C) Failing to issue the registration to the F Tigers Oil for its mark already processed, approved and published, with the thirty days for filing op- position already expired without any opposition being filed or any written request for extension of time being filed. (D) Refusing to correct its mistake/wrong- doing/violation even after being informed and moved by Petitioner FTigers Oil. (E) Refusing to admit a supplemental ans- wer from the FTigers Oil even while allowing the Opposition out of time, the latter not being discre- tionary on the part of the PTO/TTAB, but the former allowable on motion. (F) Allowing the FTiger Line to file a sham Motion for Summary Judgment for the purpose of raising additional issues not included in the Opposi- tion, and then in an Order directing that the FTigers Oil must prove those Issues/Matters even though they were never included ir the Opposition/Com- plaint — and thus legally barred from the case, which was already barred by the Trademark Law for being filed out of time. (G) Violation of equal protection and due process by TTAB’s refusal to allow Supplemental Answer with Additional Affirmative Defenses and Exhibits, but allowing FTiger Line to introduce issues by a sham motion that were never included in the Opposition. (H) Refusing to require FTiger Line to answer 11 each and every allegation in the affirmative de- fenses and counterclaim of FTigers Oil, and thus altowing it to plead on a different standard than is applied against the FTigers Oil; and refusing to rule and act in accordance with the law spe- cifying that failure to answer or to answer specifi- cally constitutes an admission (which admissions destroy the Opposition and show that fraud and perjury were employed to obtain registrations). (1) Failing and refusing to apply those ad- missions against the FTiger Line respondent here- in to reduce litigation. (J) Failing and refusing to acknowledge that said failure to answer constituting admissions amount to grounds for dismissal of the Opposition on the merits, and amount to admissions that the Opposition is perjurious and the applications and affidavits filed by FTiger Line are false. (K) Removing or not entering in the record the Pleading of the FTigers Oil itemizing in detail each and every allegation that the FTiger Line failed refused to answer (which Pleading pinpoint- al unanswered allegations and cornered the PTO/ TTAB in its continuing illegally favorable Acts/Or- ders on behalf of the FTiger Line) and which re- fusal to enter pleading of FTigers Oil, or the re- moval thereof from the record, was discovered by the FTigers Oil only from the Certified List finally obtained from the CAFC in Appeal No. 84-602, and which was obviously removed or not entered precisely to make the PTO’/TTAB look good on its illegal allowance of FTiger Line to plead a case without answering all the allegations/affirm- Diiieenll 12 tive defenses of the Flying Tigers Oil, which omis- sion is an act of falsification of the record and fraud for the benefit of FTiger Line. (L) Untruthfully telling the FTigers Oil that the Official Gazette was months behind in publica- tion and thus an extension is allowable, when in fact upon verification with the Government Print- ing Office there was no such late publication for months prior to actual publication of November 18, 1980 for the mark of the FTigers Oil except for one day. See Appendices ‘O,’ ‘P,’ ‘Q’ of this Petition, pp. cxi-cxiv. (M) Making amendments or adjustments in Trademark Law or Rules of Practice, or in the application thereof, when the statute specifically states that no amendment can be made that causes damage to anyone (in other words adjustments can be made providing that there is no objection). (N) Denying Motion for Summary Judgment of FTigers Oi' even though FTiger Line never filed any opposition thereto; nor separately or in conjunc- tion therewith ever answered all the allegations and affirmative defenses of the Flying Tigers Oil (which were not answered because to do so under oath falsely would lead to a case or cases for perjury, and if they told the truth FTiger Line would be admitting that it has no basis for opposition and no basis for their applications to use the name of the Flying Tigers Oil and its “Tiger Head Logo’) (O) Issuing an Order dated December 22, 1982 and never sending a copy to the FTigers Oil (which was learned only in 1984 when a copy of the Cer- tified List was sent to the FTigers Oil by the CAFC aE se ONIN Ks Ber eiie DeS | eee Oe Se eee eee 13 showing that Order) thus prejudicing the FTigers Oil in the prosecution of its Petition to cancel re- gistrations of the FTiger Line. (P) Refusing to send FTigers Oil copy of said Order and even after formal request has been made. (Q) Sending another Order to the address of the FTiger Line instead of the address of the F Tigers Oil thus preventing FTigers Oil from knowing what is transpiring and what status the PTO/TTAB has given to the case/controversy. (R) Giving to FTiger Line four additional chances to present Evidence in Chief since the Order of December 22, 1982 (which Order was ne- ver sent to FTigers Oil), and three additional chances after the FTiger Line completed its evi- dence in Chief without any witnesses, and only one illegible undecipherable document unidentified and unsigned, with two registrations that are subject to cancellation proceeding on grounds of perjury, fraud, whereas the FTigers Oil would have only one chance after everything is fixed up for the FTiger Line — although that should not be neces- sary because the Opposition Proceedings are ille- gal in the first place because of having been filed out of time without any written request for ex- tension of time. (S) Denying various things to the FTigers Oil but quickly and readily granting approximately the same things to FTiger Line, such as furnishing co- pies and answers to queries. (T) Failing/refusing to answer repeated re- quests of FTigers Oil as vo whether a deposition had been filed by the FTiger Line. ee 14 (U) Continuously and consistently demons- trating discrimination against Oil and in favor of Airline, with all that those connote and signify sub- liminally. | (V) Failing/refusing to require FTiger Line to answer allegations of false designation in use of mark ‘Flying Tigers’ (use after filing of application in 1970’s) owned by the Flying Tigers International and Flying Tigers Oil and Flying Tigers Party in common law. (W) Violating the confidentiality of the ap- plication of FTigers Oil prior to registration by showing and furnishing copy thereof to FTiger Line or its counsel (which prior to registration is prohibited by the Trademark Law). (X) Failure to rule and allow Motion for Leave of Court to amend Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim of Petition for Cancel- lation or admit Supplemental Answer with addi- tional affirmative defenses. (Y) Failure to disqualify Fruge, Rice, Quigg, | Simes, Hutt, Chapman, Mossinghoff after charges of favoritism were filed. (Z) Allowing notarization of affidavit for FTiger Line in proceeding in the PTO when the name of that notary is essentially the same as a member of the law firm of FTiger Line, Lyon and Lyon, which is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (AA) Allowing defective oath, contrary to the requirements of the Trademark Rules of Practice, for FTiger Line in proceedings before PTO/TTAB. 15 (BB) Failing to publish Amendments of Rules Rules or Proposed Amendment of Rules in the Official Gazette and Federal Register, beneficial to the FTiger Line. (CC) Giving of legal advice openly in Orders to FTiger Line and its counsel and telling them how to prevail over the FTigers Oil. (DD) Allowing private contact with key per- sons in the PTO/TTAB in order to arrange favor- able treatment for the FTiger Line. (EE) Failing to inform FTigers Oil of its Decision/Action on FTigers Oil’s Motion For Leave of Court to amend its Answer with Counterclaim of Cancellation of Registrations of FTiger Line. (FF) Failing to inform FTigers Oil of rulings on the filing of various papers by the FTigers Qil. (GG) Failing to report to the FBI the keep- ing of papers by the FTiger Line that belong to the FTigers Oil and which were sent to the address of the FTiger Line. (HH) Refusal to resolve FTiger Oil’s Mo- tion for Reconsideration of Order dated July 15, 1982 denying Motion to Dismiss. (II) Answering inquiries and requests of FTiger Line always and quickly and formally but not answering those of FTigers Oil. (JJ) Failure to resolve Motion for Reconsi- deration of FTigers Oil of Order dated July 15, 1982 on FTiger Line’s simulated sham Motion for Sum- mary Judgment on the two matters introduced thereby but not in issue because of their complete absence from the Opposition filed out of time. i6 (KK) Transforming and considering FTigers Oil’s Motion for Summary Judgment as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings when in fact said Motion did not ask for resolution of all the issues in the case, which in itself is before PTO/TTAB illegally having been filed out of time. (LL)) Stating that the objection of FTigers Oil to some illegible and undecipherable document without certification was made too late, but which is discretionary under the rules, but allowed FTiger Line to file Opposition/Complaint very much out of time, without any written request for extension of time or a certificate of mailing, which is not dis- cretionary and is fixed by Statute. (MM) Issued an Order in Letter form that no order should be issued prejudicial to the FTiger Line during an investigation for exclusion of FTiger Line’s counsel for misrepresentation and fraud, but without equal treatment that no order can be issued against the FTigers Oil during the same pe- riod. (NN) Whitewashed charge of fraud without seeking particulars from FTigers Oil and its coun- sel, and without asking FTigers Oil for any evi- dence that it has to prove the charge. (OO) Placing in Order the misrepresentation of the FTiger Line and its counsel, which falsehood is evident from the very document involved, which is in the possesion of the PTO/TTAB, thus showing cutright dishonesty, but total subordination to the wishes of the FTiger Line and its counsel. (PP) Failing and refusing to correct said felse statement in said Order after it was called to 17 the attention of PTO/TTAB — thus constituting willful falsification of record against FTigers Oil and in favor of FTiger Line and its counsels. (QQ) Pretended that the telephone company gave it the address of the FTigers Oil in Phoenix, Arizona, when in fact it was the address of the F Tiger Line, which type ‘Mistake’ is inconceivable, unless part of a plan in the PTO/TTAB/FTiger Line. (RR) Failed/Refused to send a complete co- py of the Certified List to the FTigers Oil after Appeal; and after repeated complaints sent only Page 3 thereof consisting of only three items (which reluctance is understandable since it reveals Or- ders not sent to FTigers Oil and Pleadings of F'Tigers Oil never resolved, and the material Plead- ing itemizing the admissions by failure to answer and deny of the FTiger Line which was either removed or not entered in the record of the sub- ject case. (SS) Followed a course to effectively eliminate discovery for the benefit of the FTiger Line, who has much to hide, and which act blends with the even worse failure/refusal to rule against FTiger Line for failing to deny each and every averment and affirmative defense specifically, and many not at all. If PTO/TTAB would not require a full/ ccmplete/specific answer from FTiger Line required by the rules naturally it would not force discovery upon FTiger Line which is almost completely dis- cretionary. (TT) Continually applying the rules against the FTigers Oil even on minor considerations but 18 always setting aside the rules for the benefit of the FTiger Line. (UU) Failing and refusing to apply the Rules on Defaults and Admissions against the FTiger Line. (VV) Failing to rule that when the FTiger Line does not oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment of the FTigers Oil that is a type of de- fault not subject to arbitrary disregard by the PTO/ TTAB. (WW) Failing to rule that a default by FTiger Line on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by FTigers Oil in regard to ‘Failure of FTiger Line to deny Averment and Affirmative Defenses of FTigers Oil constitutes admissions and a triple default because the FTiger Line had already pre- viously failed to deny the same material averments when specified in the Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss of the FTigers Oil. (XX) Committing the wrongdoing cited in question Presented 27 (OO) in the Brief of FTigers Oil in Appeal 84-602 before CAFC. \ (YY) Committing the wrongdoing cited in questions Presented, and acts and failures to act of favoritism, No. 27 (PP to III inclusive) in the Brief of FTigers Oil in Appeal No. 84-602 before the CAFC. (ZZ) Took over one year to send copies of registrations of FTLine 1,004,930, 969,394 and 999,837 to FTigers Oil, and did so only after Com- plaint was filed with Inspector General of the De- partment of Commerce. 19 (AAA) Never sent pages 1 and 2 of Certified List until apparently the Clerk of Court of CAFC intervened, and never sent even page 3 until a pre- vious reprimand from the CAFC apparently. (BBB) Typically, in Order dated January 27, 1984 PTO/TTAB directs all its criticism against FTigers Oil despite fact that: FTiger Line filed more papers during that period than FTigers Oil. The Flying Tigers Oil appealed in October, 1983 after the TTAB' had given FTLine three chances to present Evidence in Chief; and after the FT Line had consumed its trial period during which it had completed its evidence with the adoption of its three registrations and the filing of an illegible, unsigned, with manuscript entries, self-created document of unfathomable content or purpose except by a hope- lessly corrupt viewer. The FTLine’s Counsel hav- ing made the false statement that the case was onlyi n the discovery stage when in fact it had only in the discovery stage when in fact it had completed its Evidence in Chief, the FTOil’s Coun- sel had to prepare an Appendix to Reply Brief containing all the documents on FTiger Line’s evidence to show that false statement. See Ap- pendix to Reply Brief in 84-602 in CAFC, also marked as Appendice MM in this Petition. —PTO refers to PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS OFFICE: TTAB refers to TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD: FTLINE refers to THE FLYING TIGER LINE INC.; FTIGERS OIL OR FTOIL refers to THE FLYING TI- GERS OIL CO. INC.; CAFC REFERS TO COURT OF AP- PEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT; APPE. refers to the APPENDIX; RULES OF PRACTICE refers to the RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE PATENT AND TRADE- MARK OFFICE. 20 The CAFC claims that it has no jurisdiction over the Appeal 84-602 and in regard to the Peti- tion for Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prehibition/Deciara- tory Relief filed by the Flying Tigers Oil Co., the Flying Tigers International and its International Commander, Morton F. Meads, the CAFC brushed it off by joining it with the appeal, more or less admitting that it would have jurisdiction, but stat- ing that it is very rare that it issues an extra- ordnary writ — which is an evasion of the issue of whether the statute is being violated and whether it is mandatory and ministerial on the part of the PTO/TTAB Commissioner, at the stage cited above, to issue the registration applied for and direct the out-of-time-opposer to the Trademark Law for his available recourse, which as stated above is for Peti- tion for Cancellation of Registration — not Opposi- tion to Registration, the FTigers Oil having met all the statutory requirements of the Trademark Law. The CAFC also states that the extraordinary writ canot be granted in order to circumvent a trial. This is diametrically opposite to the legal truth. it is the illegal trial of Opposition barred by Statute that is being used to circumvent the specific dic- tates of the Statute — which are neither amend- able, suspendable, adjustable by the Commisioner/ PTO/TTAB to allow the giving of due course to an out of time Opposition without any written request for extension and which must be filed prior to expiration of 30 day period from publication. It is of no consequence what the ‘Trial of Opposi- tion’ brings forth. It is illegal because of the pro- visions of the statute, (Trademark Law and Rules of Practice). If the PTO/TTAB wants to change i: RAR Sit hascaiti ice mi 21 the law it cannot do it administratively, nor through the courts. The only trial that it can hold on the matter is a Trial for Cancellation of the Registration — if a Petition for Cancellation is filed by the FTiger Line. Any Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition that may be issued by the Supreme Court can carry the proviso that it is without prejudice to the filing of a petition for cancellation of the le- gally required registration of the mark of the Fly- ing Tigers Oil Co. Inc. if their are justifiable bases therefor. ) All the violations of the Constitutional Rights of the FTigers Oil to due process and equal protec- tion could be referred back to the CAFC for ruling on the merits, inasmuch as the law and constitu- tion do not allow for the CAFC to evade its judi- cial responsibilities in such a cavalier manner as is shown in the Final Decision in 84-602 which is Appendice C of this Petition pp. xxiv-xxviii, and then try to block an Appeal after remanding and also a rehearing by dismissing appearance of PRO HAC VICE counsel, while taking no action against FTiger Line’s counsel on charges of pleading false- ly that were not denied and which were proven false by Appendices submitted by FTigers Oil and never objected to. In order to be fully informed the CAFC should have admitted the intervention of the Flying Tigers International, Robert Zlomke, small stockholder and secretary of the Flying Tigers Oil Co. and Secre- tary for the American Pacific of the Flying Tigers International and Morton F. Meads, International Commander of that organization of veterans of the 22 20th Bomber Command, 14th 13th, and 5th Air Forces of the United States. Intervention is usual- ly viewed judicially with liberality, the principle being that in the search for truth and judicial wis- dom all voices and involved parties should be heard. This Appeal Petition also involves all the ques- tions presented to the CAFC and cited in the Amended Petition of Appeal and the Brief of the appellant FTigers Oil. The Petitioners herein re- quest that all of the Briefs, Appendices and Exhibits submitted in the CAFC be elevated to the Supreme Court. The International Commander of the Fly- ing Tigers International, Morton F. Meads, and its Secretary for the American Pacific, Robert Zlomke, as veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States, and the Flying Tigers International being a veterans organization, request that their participa- tion as peitioners be accorded any rights or pri- vileges applicable to veterans in judicial proceed- ings, and that the CAFC and PTO/TTAB be instructed to allow their intervention at all times in the matters subject of this Petition. The basis for Federal Jurisdiction in the Court of First Instance, i.e. the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is equivalent to a Federal Dis- trict Court, is stated in this Petition under juris- diction. There is no dispute between the parties, the PTO/TTAB, the CAFC that there only fede- ral jurisdiction is involved entirely and from the outset The provisions of the applicable law are cited in the Appendix of this Petition, i.e., Appen- dice ‘L’, pp. lxvii-xcii. The CAFC admits and states in its fmal Decision, Appendice C of this Pe- i aailaiineaiaaaailiaal oo 23 tition pp. xxiv-xxviii that it has jurisdiction over the PTO/TTAB but claims that jurisdiction only applies to final decisions. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRITS The Supreme Court should grant the Writ of Certiorari sought, as well as other writs, because im- portant and special reasons exist, to wit: (A) The CAFC has so far sanctioned the departure by the PTO/TTAB from the usual or le- gal and constitutional course of judicial proceedings required and controlled by the Constitution, First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Trademark Law, 15 U. S. Code, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to call for the exercise of this court’s power of supervision; and, (B) The CAFC has decided federal questions in a way in conflict with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court or other Federal Courts of Appeal, or has refused to decide such questions in any way whatsoever; and, (C) The CAFC has refused to render judicial services as required by the Constitution, has pass- ed the judicial buck either to the Supreme Court or to the PTO/TTAB, and thus has also violated the principle of equal access to the courts laws (on the basis that access means that the federal courts will render judicial services on the merits once entry is permitted) and the Meads Judicial Bill of Rights. (D) The CAFC has degraded Filipino coun- sel for ‘unconciseness’ and ‘emotionalism’ while to- 24 lerating proven, and undenied, allegations of un- truthfulness or misrepresentation by American counsel which should be reviewed by this court to determine whether favoritism and discrimination is involved and the CAFC action justified and proper considering that the Philippines Supreme Court allows American counsel admission to the Philip- pines Bar and Regular Practice before all courts without examination on the presumption of the existence of reciprocity; and, (E) To resolve important, serious and broad federal questions in a clear and definitive manner that are at present either cloudy, contradictory or not yet ruled upon ultimately, or which deserve a new ruling because of staleness and related con- siderations, but which should be fully ruled upon by the Supreme Court and jurisprudence revitalized at the earliest possible time; and, (F) To settle once and for all whether the federal courts are required to rule on the merits of all cases controversies brought before it involving violations of constitutional rights and/or statute law; and (G) To resolve absolutely whether the All Writs Act is a dead letter or whether the federal courts are going to exercise their powers and du- ties thereunder; and, (H) ‘To render periodic supervision over the Federal Office of Patents and Trademark and clean it up, straighten it out, and instruct it properly and fully on the rules of trial procedure, due process and equal protection as related to matter under the jurisdiction of the PTO. TTAB, which judicial Se ee 25 supervision of said federal agency is long overdue and will last for at least another generation if all the questions in the above-entitled case are re- solved by the Supreme Court; and, (I) To resolve clearly and fully whether the judicial power to review interlocutory orders pro- vided by 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1292 (a) (e) App. L of this Petition, pp. lxii-xcii (on the basis that the TTAB is equivalent to a district court and that Mandamus /Prohibition has injunctive character, and that the instruction of the PTO/TTAB that it would not entertain any question or objection about its giving due course to the ‘Opposition’ out-of- time is injunctive in character) had been rescinded by the Supreme Court or other federal courts, such as CAFC, by its own jurisprudence excusing it- self from resolving interlocutory orders on their merits on the grounds that interlocutory orders do not dispose of a case finally or have a dispositive part, but which reasons contradict the said action of Congress and the President giving to federal- courts the power to hear, consider and resolve matters in interlocutory orders, or acts and failures to act represented by interlocutory orders, on their meriis. These reasons are demonstrated in detail by the questions presented both in this Petition to the Supreme Court and in the CAFC, the latter holding both Appeal 84-602 and a Petition for Cer- tiorari / Mandamus / Prohibition/Declaratory Relief that are joined. See also Appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’ of this Petition pp. i-xxiii and xxx the resolution on the merits of which, in a clear, categorical and 26 full manner, will accomplish the judicial objectives suggested in, for and by the aforecited reasons for granting the writs prayed for. ARGUMENT Because of the page limitation of the Rules of the Supreme Court there is no space for a bona fide argument. Right to present argument is a Substantive Right under 28 U. S. Code Sec. 2072, which a party should not be deprived of. Nevertheless, a brief memorandum of argument on several of the most important questions present- ed can be found in Appendice ‘X’ pp. cxxiii-clxvi of this Petition. In addition the Argument in the Typewritten Petition of Robert Zlomke is hereby adopted and made an integral part of this Petition by reference. MANDATORY STATEMENTS The Petitioner herein hereby certifies that to his knowledge the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other Federal Court has not certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2403 (a), to the Attorney General that any act of Con- gress has been drawn in question at the time this Petition was prepared and filed. SWORN STATEMENT OF MAILING AND AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE These are located at the end of this Petition, after the Appendix, the last two pages. ee ee 27 CONCLUSION Robert Zlomke is a Petitioner herein because he has an interest and right to protect as a small stockholder of the Flying Tigers Oil Co. Inc., and an officer thereof; and as a member and officer of the Flying Tigers International and is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the Motion filed in this court for leave so to proceed together with the required affidavit. The CAFC erred in not giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari-Mandamus/ Prohibition/ Declaratory Relief (although it joined it with Appeal No. 84-602 in its Final Decision; and the CAFC erred in not issuing the extraordinary writs of mandamus and prohibition to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (PTO/TTAB) to issue the registration required by Statute of the mark ‘Fly- ing Tigers Oil’ or ‘Flying Tigers Oil Co.’ to the Fly- ing Tigers Oil Company, Inc. and dismiss the Oppo- sition theretc; and it erred in refusing to order the termination of the violations of the Constitutional Rights of the Flying Tigers Oil, and consequently its stockholders and officers, and the members and officers of the Flying Tigers International, to due process and equal protection; and it erred in not admitting the Flying Tigers International and Ro- bert Zlomke, Secretary for the American Pacific, and Morton F. Meads, International Commander, as Intervenors in Appeal 84-602 (although they were petitioners in the Petition for Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prohibtion/Declaratory Relief in the CAFC); and it erred in not correcting and ordering PTO/TTAB to cease and desist violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and it erred in not identifying 28 these many violations as constituting ‘corruption’ and therefore immediately actionable by any higher federal court; and it erred in not ordering sum- marily the cancellation of the registrations 999,837 and 969,394 and 1,004,930 on grounds of perjury and fraud for the first two, as well as for false de- signation for the first one cited. which is shown in the very papers submitted to the PTO by the Fly- ing Tiger Line Inc. itself; and cancellation of 1,004,930 for being descriptive in character on its face; and it erred in claiming that it has no super- visory powers over the PTO/TTAB/Commissioner when in fact what is sought is judicial review of their actuations, Constitution violations represented by Acts and Orders and Notices; and it erred in forcing the FTOil Co. to suffer and endure the vio- lations of its Constitutional Rights and those of its stockholders set forth in the Appeal 84-602; and it erred in siding with counsel of FTLine against the counsel of FTigers Oil considering that it is the counsel of the latter that is protecting and present- ing the complaints and bad news about the PTO/ TTAB and therefore compelled to exnlain, support, analyze, detail and show the wrongdoing and viola- tions of the PTO/TTAB which task inevitably re- quires time/space/written accounts/emotional strain or the appearance of emotional strain; and it erred in forcing the Petitioners, including the undersigned, in the Petition before the CAFC to go to the Supreme Court to request the latter to do the work of the CAFC; and it erred in addressing the questions presented from the sole point of ‘Appeals of Or- ders’ of PTO/TTAB rather than from the viola- tions of the Consitutional Rights through discrimi- nation which demand the attention of the CAFC I Raa Ds teste ee 29 and immediate correction and redress; and the Com- missioner/PTO/TTAB erred in committing all the acts of omission and commission cited in this Peti- tion and the Appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’ of this Peti- tion, including the Orders of TTAB, Appendices ‘F’, ‘G’, and ‘I’ of this Petition, which are repre- sentative of the illegal and unconstitutional acts complained of and an extension thereof, and therefore all said errors should be corrected by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner Robert Zlomke, and those privy to him and this Petition have presented important, novel, unprecedented considerations, issues and questions involving fraud, corruption, burden of proof, fair triah due process, equal protection, judicial anarchy, racial or na- tionality discrimination in counsel, indirect and/or subliminal discrimination involving parties and their types of business and the sanctity and paramountcy of the Constitution over judicial technicalities and prerogatives. Wherefore the Supreme Court should grant the Writ of Certiorari to the CAFC and the PTO/ TTAB to review their Orders and Decision and acts of commission and omission, and thereafter grant the Declaratory Relief requested together with the applicable Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and disbar Blakely, Sokoloff, Zafman and Hyman f+ making untruthful statements to a federal court. Dated: 3 January 1985. 30 Respectfully submitted, Ca ROBER : Petitioner (In Forma Pauperis) PRO SE Small Stockholder and Officer of the Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. Member and Officer of the Flying Tigers International P. O. Box 1094, Manila, Philippines — all MORTON F. MEADS Petitioner (PRO SE) (For and In His Own Behalf) Member and Officer of the Flying Tigers International P. O. Box 1094 Manila, Plflippines a) A.C. S In-hou Attorney for Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. 1050 Concepcion St., Ermita, Manila, Philippines Voce ta. Cpa Bags VICENTE L. AANTIAGO In-house Counsel Attorney for Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. 602 Roman Santos Bldg. Plaza Goiti Manila, Philippines And Attorney For The Flying Tigers International ; ‘a APPENDIX i Appendice ‘A’ QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN DETAIL IN SUPREME COURT 1. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over either an Appeal from or Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT relative to the latter’s Final Decision dated October 5, 1984? 2. Do the Petitioners who are Veterans or a Vete- rang Organization have the right to avail of the privi- leges provided by the law and the Rules of the Supreme Court for veterans to petition this court and maintain a position in this case and controversy? 38. Is corruption in e Federal Agency or tribunal (represented by repeated violations cf the constitutional rights of Flying Tigers Oil Company and the Flying Tigers Interrational and its International Commander Morton F. Meads, and the members of the Flying Tigers International inasmuch as they have given to the Flying Tigers Oil Company the right to use the name and mark ‘FLYING TIGERS’) and violations of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure) immediately reviewable by appeal or certiorari by either the CAFC or the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court on Writ of Certiorari to the CAFC for the latter’s failure/refusal to use its ju- dicial powers to put a stop to that corruption? 4. Does the law require Flying Tigers Oil Co. (and consequently Flying Tigers Internationa] and its officers and members) a party to suffer the usurpation of its name @nd mark, owned in common law. by another party Who is using the name and mark ‘FLYING TIGERS’ as a false designation. inasmuch as that party, the Flying Tiger Line Inc. is not the ‘Flying Tigers’, never were the “Flying Tigers’ and never will be the ‘Flying ii Appendice ‘A’ Tigers’ through various proceedings when the principle of ‘false designation’ is subject to immediate termina- tion through Preliminary Injunction, Mandamus/Prohi- bition/Declaratory Relief? 5. Is the CAFC and/or the Supreme Court obligated to terminate the illegal use of the name and mark ‘FLY- ING TIGERS’ and ‘tiger head logo’ by the Flying Tiger Line Inc. when the documents filed by it in the Patents and Trademark Office in various applications and pro- ceedings show that it did not use thet name and mark and logo either before the Flying Tigers Oil Company or the Flying Tigers International, or before it filed applications for registration of that mark and logo in the PTO; or is that party, Flying Tiger Line Inc. bound by its own contradictory statements and admissions against self and interest in the very records supplied by the ‘FT Line to the PTO; and the PTO/TTAB and CAFC bound to take summary action to terminate/can- cel registration of FT Line after those admissions, contradictions and perjury are brought to the attention of the PTO/TTAB and the CAFC? 6. Is the CAFC and the Supreme Court hoiding jurisdiction over the procedure of determining of what a ‘fact? is; and how a particular consideration is deter- mined to be a ‘fact’ or ‘nonfact’; or the failure/refu- sal of the PTO/TTAB to require the FTLine Inc. to answer specifically the allegations of fact of the FTiger Oil Co.; and the illegal and unconstitutional procedure of the PTO/TTAB of applying two different standards of factual determination to the parties for the illegal benefit of the FTLine and the illegal prejudice of the F Tigers Oil, and other entities effected? 7. Does the CAFC have the right to refuse to rule on the merits of allegations of violations of constitu- tional rights in federal agencies brought to its attention on appeal or by certiorari? Bate = a Appendice ‘A’ iii 8. Does the Constitution of the United States and the Judicial Powers under Article III make it manda- tory upon the CAFC and the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of all charges of violations of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection brought be-. fore it on appeal or Certiorari/Mandamus/ Prohibition and Declaratory Relief? 9. Is there such a thing as judicial buckpassing; and if there is, is it time for the Supreme Court to declare by various means a Judicial Bill of Rights in- cluding a requirement that all courts of appeals are required to rule on the merits of all charges of viola- tions of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and of violations of the Rules of Federal Civil and Criminal Procedure; and including a condition that no matter may be brought to it until it has been ruled upon on its merits by a Federal Court of Appeals or State Supreme Court. and that those courts are le- gally and constitutionally required to rule on the me rits of all constitutional, legal questions brought be- fore it by any means? 10. The CAFC has implied in its final decision, (App. C, pp. xxiv-xxvi that the subject matter of Appeal No. 84-602 may still be brought to it sometime in the future: Is there any reason to expect that the charges of violations of the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by the PTO/TTAB and FTLine will be of any more concern to the CAFC the second time than it has been the first time in 84-602 when the CAFC refused to entertain them. consider them or rule upon them in any way whatsoever? 11. Must the FTigers Oil and others connected with it suffer the violation of its constitutional rights and incur the injuries, many irreparable, when the CAFC has the jurisdiction, the judicial powers, either appel- late or original, to put a stop to those violations? iv Appendice ‘A’ 12. Has Flying Tigers Oil, in alleging that the TRADEMARK Law, as applied by the Patents and Trademark Office/Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Trademark Law in requesting appellate, mandamus/prohibition, and dec- laratory relief to compel, the PTO/TTAB to apply, en- force and execute the provisions of the Trademark Law; and in seeking relief designed to redress the dep- rivation of its right not to be denied due process and equal protection of the laws, without infringing upon any right of private entities to take recourse to filing Complaint for Cancellation of Trademark (a) stated a cause of action within the appellate jurisdiction of the CAFC and originel jurisdiction for issuance of extra- ordinary writs 28 U.S.C. § 1651, All Writs ACT, and under 15 US.C. § 1071, the 1st and 14th Amendments; and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 2281 and. hence, within the jurisdiction of the CAFC and the Supreme Court on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 and 1253(b) presented and main- tained @ case or controversy subject to determination by the exercise of judicial power under Article III of the United States Constitution? 13. Does the PTO/TTAB/CAFC scheme of litigation control as established by the acts/orders of the PTO/ TTAB and final decision of the CAFC, (App. C, pp. xxiv- xxvi) insofar as it involves the refusal to issue a registra- tion under application 86,288 to the FTigers Oil, whose ap- plication was completed, approved and published and un- opposed for thirty days and more without any written request for extension of time to file an Opposition there- to, and which Registration can still be made subject to filing of Petition for Cancellation of registration at any time by any party claiming to be damaged thereby (which registration places the ‘burden of proof’ upon any Petitioner for Cancellation, and which ‘burden of proof’ is a property right protected by the Constitution of the United States and a part of due Appendice ‘A’ process and equal protection) constitute Corruption, and/ or Violations of the Constitutional Rights of the F Tigers Oil, and other affected thereby, particularly under the Fourteenth Amendment? 14. Did the PTO/TFAB/CAFC, in giving due course to Opposition No. 63,986 filed out of time and barred by the Trademark Law discriminate against the FTigers Oil in violation of the Law and the U.S. Constitution and fashion a procedure and inevitably a conclusion con- trary to facts already known and a matter of record and lege! principles already well established under the process and equal protection of the laws provisions of the United States Constitution? 15. Has an action for redress of the deprivation of the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, been precluded or limited in anyway by enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provides for extraordinary writ re- lief against discrimination by government action? 16. Is the CAFC legally obligated to order the ter- mination of violations of the Constitutional Rights of one or mere of the petitioners herein after they are brought to the attention of the CAFC either by ap- peal or Petition for Certiorari/Mandamus, Prohibition/ Declaratory Relief? 17. Is the CAFC obligated to order the termination cf violations of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure by the PTO/TTAB when judicially presented to it ? 18. Is the CAFC obligated to rule on the merits of all the violations cf Constitutional rights to due pro- cess and equal protection presented to it by the FTOil Co. and which are embodied in orders/Acts and failures to act of the PTO/TTAB? vi Appendice ‘A’ 19. Does the CAFC have jurisdiction over the Ap- peal in 84-602 and the Petition for Certiorari/Manda- mus, Prohibition/Declaratory Relief, not docketed but cited in the final decision of CAFC dated Oct. 5, 1984 in 84-602, and the obligation to rule on the merits of all the questions and issues presented therein? 20. Is the PTO/TTAB obligated by Statute, Trade- mark Law, to issue Registration to FTOil for its mark Flying Tigers Oil or Flying Tigers Oil Co. under com- pleted and published application 86.288 when no oppo- sition was filed within 30 day statutory period and no written request for extension of time was filed by the Flying Tiger Line or any other entity? 21 Is the CAFC or the Supreme Court of the United States obligated by law and the Constitution to issue a writ of Mandamus to PTO/TTAB to issue registration based upon the Statutory specifications in the Trade- mark Law? 22. Is ‘Burden of Proof’ under the Trademark Law and the FRCivPro. a Property Right protected by the Constitution for the party not having that burden? 23. Is the noncompletion cf the trial in the TTAB grounds for the CAIFC to refuse to use its judicial po- wers to terminate violations of the Constitution or rights of Flying Tigers Oil, and others effected by that refusal, to due process and equal protection before and during that trial? 24. Is the completion of the evidence of the FTLine in the TTAB a sufficiently advanced stage for the FTi- gers Oil Co. to bring all violations of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure and of the Constitutional Rights to due process and equal protection of the FTigers Oil, after the latter has already registered such complaints with the PTO/TTAB, to the judicial attention of the CAFC for redress and correction? Appendice ‘A’ vii 25. Does the FTO/TTAB have the legal right to eliminate a pleading of the FTigers Oil itemizing the allegations of fact that the FTLine has failed and re- fused to answer in anyway from the record of Case No. 63.986 and from the Certified List sent to the CAFC thus falsifying the record and giving illegal be- nefit to the FTLine and illegal prejudice to the FTOil? 26. Does No. 24 above create obligations for the CAFC to resolve the issues and questions brought be- fore it in Appeal No. 84-602 end Petition for Certio- rari/Mandamus, Prohibition/Declaratory Relief and ter- minate the violations cited therein? 27. Can the CAFC legally ignore over 30 primary and 100 secondary issues/questions brought before it on appeal 84-602 with the claim that it does not have supervisory powers over the PTO’TTAB, when it is manifest that what is being asked for is a judicial] review and action? 28. Does the CAFC have the power to restrict the number of pages of the Brief of FTigers Oil so that either the “Questions Presented” or the “Argument” must be eliminated and/or does that restricticn violate 28 U.S.C. § 2072 guaranteeing that no substantial right of any party can be prejudiced by the internal operating rules of a court? 29. Can the Judges in the CAFC legally sign a Decision while en undisclosed person or judge therein writes the decision? 30. Can the CAFC legally prejudice or disparage the counsel of a party for being ‘wordy’ or ‘unconcise’ and ‘emotional’ when that party is the one afflicted by multivarious wrongdoings of the opposing party and its counsels (which perforce it must state and argue) and when the First Party and its counsel have itemized par- ticular false statements of opposing american counsel? viii Appendice ‘A’ 31. Can the CAFC legally evade its legal obligations to apply its constitutional judicial powers to order ter- mination of-violations of the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and violations of the Rules of Fed. Civ. Procedure on the claim that ORDERS ap- pealed to it and containing some of those violations, are interlocutory or that such orders do not dispose of the case completely and finally? 32. Can the CAFC legally make rules and legally enforce those rules which were never set for hearing and the reception of opposition thereto? 33. Is the CAFC legaily cbligated to order the PTO/TTAB to issue Summary Judgment against FTLine when the latter did not OPPOSE the Motion for Sum- mary Judgment of the FTigers Oil in the PTO/TTAB, and did not answer all the affirmative defenses and al- legations of fact of the FTigers Oil, which failure con- stitutes admissions? 34. Can the CAFC legally refuse a Writ of Man- gamus/Prohibition for issuance of Registration of a Trademark on a claim that the trial is not completed when the basis for the WRIT is the failure/refusal of FTO/TTAB to perform a ministerial function mandated by the Statute (Trademark Law), which function does not allow for delay or a proceeding to circumvent the mandatory requirement of the Stature? 35. Will the CAFC give any more consideration and appreciation to the claim of mandatory statutory ob- ligation of the PTO/TTAB to issue registration to FTigers Oi! on later appeal after completion of trial than it has no current appeal No. 84-602 when nothing ebout such obligation of PTO/TTAB and legal right of the FTigers Oil will change between now and any later date, the law and the facts in regard thereto already being in existence and incapable of being changed? Appendice ‘A’ ix 36. Is not the CAFC legally and morally obligated to issue the Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition immediately in the interest of judicial economy and enforcement of the Statute specifications and Constitutional require- ments to equal protection of the law? 37. Is not the CAFC denial of the Writ Now, when plea is based on Statute, an actual permanent denial and the inference by the CAFC in its final decision that it can consider it later on appeal nothing but a delusion and deception? 38. Is the claim of the CAFC in its final decision dated October 5, 1984 stating that a Petition for Man- damus/Prohibition based upon Statute is a circum- vention of appeal after trial a correct legal analysis or is the law on Extraordinary Writs enacted precisely for the purpose of enforcing mandatory and ministerial functions of Governmert Agencies and Officials and thus the request for mandamus/prohibition is not a circumvention of anything but the enforcement of a le- gal and constitutionel right that eliminates unnecessary and costly red tape and illegal proceedings? 39. Is the question here: Right of CAIFIC to re- view mandamus/prohibition issue on appeal of final deci- sion or its legal/constitutional obligation tc rule on Question of law (enforcement of Trademark Law) intro- duced both by appeal and Petition for Mandamus/Pro- hibition/Declaratory Relief by the Flying Tigers Oil and by Flying Tigers International et al, in the Petition at this time. and which is now before the Supreme Court on the same legal and constitutional basis? 40. The CAFC states that it has no jurisdiction over appeal 84-602 under 15 U.S.C. § 1071 (a) (1): Is that the only Jurisdiction of the CAFC Subject of Appeal No. 84-602 for Violation of Legal and Constitu- tional Rights to due process and equal protection? x Appendice ‘A 41. Is the Order/Act of PTO/TTAB giving due course to an Opposition 63,986 despite its being barred by Statute for being out of time, and there being no written request for extension of time, a final decision or act to appeal to the CAFC before completion of trial of that Opposition on its merits, which has nothing to do with the Legal Question of it being barred by Statute for being out of time, or made subject of a Peti. tion for Mandamus/Prohibition/Declaratory Relief? 42. Is the CAFC, descendent of the Court of Pa tent and Customs Appeals, involved in a@ “Good Ol Buddy System” with that agency and its officials that makes the CAFC a hostile environment to bring charge: to of corruption in the PTO/TTAB, and therefore con genitally opposed to any claims of violations of consti. tutional rights to due process and equal protection o! the law by the PTO/TTAB? 43. Is the counsel who brings such ‘bad news charges before the CAFC classifiable as ‘unknowing’ 0: the customs, precedent and standards of the CAFC anc therefore inadmissible as PRO HAC VICE counsei? 44. Is the CAFC obligated by law to rule on th: merits of all the Questions of Law presented to it il both Appeal 84-602 and Petition for Certiorari/Manda mus/Prohibition/Declaratory Relief (which it refused +t give due course to but mentioned in its final decisior (App. C, pp. xxiv-xxvi) that the opposition 63.986 wa filed out of time and is therefore barred by Statute 1 U.S.C. § 1063 cited in that appeal and Petition? 45. Is the Supreme Court now obligated by lav and the U.S. Constitution to make such ruling on th merits of the issues cited above; and obligated to issu the Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition cited in those issues and cancel the registrations 999,837; 969 394 of the FTLine pursuant to the Petition of the FTiger Appendice ‘A’ xi Oil for Cancellation thereof for being cbtained by mis- representation, false pretenses, fraud, perjury; be- cause the mark ‘FLYING TIGERS’ is a false designa- tion for the FTLine, which identity belongs to other people, thus deceiving the public? 46. Was it reasonable and fair for the CAFC to deny the Intervention in Appeal No. 84-602 of the FLY- ING TIGERS INTERNATIONAL and its International Commander, Morton F. Meads, if it was ever interested in rendering judicial service in this matter? 47. Can the PTO/TTAB legally, pursuant to a mock motion for Summary Judgment, filed for trading mate- rial in the denial of the Motion to Dismiss of the FTigers Oil, order the inclusion of an issue for the FTigers Oil to prove, when that issue/matter was never raised by the FTiger Line in its Opposition (already filed out of time and therefore barred by Statute)? 48. Can the PTO/TTAB refuse to send copies of its orders to the FTigers Oil even after formal request, despite the fact that the FTigers Oil is a party to the _case wherein the order was issued, without violating the Constitutional rights of the FTigers Oil to due preeess and equal protection? 49. Is it moral, legal and constitutional for the PTO/TTAB to commit all the wrong doings and viocla- tions cited in the Appeal 84-602 and herein petitoners’ petition for Mandamus/Prohibition/Declaratory relief in the CAFC and in this Petition, and for the CAFC and the Supreme Court to refuse to grant redress when these disgusting acts/behavior (some in the form of orders or nctices or otherwise) are brought to the judi- cial attention of said federal courts? 50. Does the Flying Tiger Line, having already presented its evidence (consisting only of its registrations xii Appendice A’ and an illegible document that is not decipherable) in the TTAB (over the repeated objections of the FTigers Oil because its opposition was filed out of time and thus barred by Statute) have any legal or procedural basis for objecting to the raising of these matters to the CAFC when all its evidence was also presented to the CAFC by the Appendix of the FTigers Oil? 51. Federal Case law holds that concealment of the record or of a court document denies a party due process: Does this apply to the PIO/TTAB’s failure/ refusal to enter a pleading in the Certified List, thus indicating that they have concealed this document, the Pleading of the FTigers listing specifically the aver- ments that the FTiger Line has failed to answer either at all or in any meaningful way; and the refusal to inform (FTigers Oil whether FTiger Line filed any de- position. or took the testimony of Carl Asmus as pre- vicusly announced; and failed to furnish the FTigers Oil cf the Order dated December 22, 1982; and refused to send copies thereof to the FTigers Oil? 52. The Rules of Practice require that an Opposi- tion have all its exhibits attached thereto: Does this mean then that the Opposition in 63.986 is null and void for failure to so attach anything thereto. and/or that having failed to so attach, they cannot later alter this condition by filing exhibits not attached to the Opposi- tion, thus violating the ‘TIME LIMIT’ for fil'ng com- plete Oppositions, and creating surprise during a trial? 53. Can the PTO/TTAB coach and teach and en- courage the FTiger Line in the trial without violating the right of the FTigers Oil Co. to due process and equal protection; which could cease to exist once im- partiality is none existent? 54. FTigers Line’s verifications are defective and not in conformity with requirements of law; Does a de- fective ‘verification’ for an Opposition. and Applications and Section 8 filings nullify those proceedings? Appendice ‘A’ xili 55. Some of the violations of due process and equal protection and/or the Fed. Rules of Civ./Procedure, and Trademark Rules of Practice and/or the Trademark Law are below: Can they be committed by the PTO/ TTAB/Commissioner with impunity and without imme- diate review and redress? (A) Giving due course to an Opposition filed out of time in violation of Statute (not subject to exten- sion as a Court has discretion to extend without a re- quest) which prescribes exactly 30 days from date of publication unless A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EX- TENSION OF TIME IS FILED. None was filed. (PR) The PTO acting motu propio for the bene- fit of the FTiger Line even though the latter made no written request for extension of time. (C) Failing to issue the registration to the FTigers Oil for its mark already processed, appreved and pub- lished, with the thirty days for filing opposition al- ready expired. (D) Refusing to correct its mistake/wrongdoing/ violation even after being informed by Petitioner FTigers Oil? (E) Refusing to admit a Supplemental Answer from the FTigers Oil even while allowing the opposition out of time, the latter not being discretionary on the part of the PTO/TTAB. (F) Allowing the FTigers Line to file a dummy Motion for Summary Judgment for the purpose of raising additional issues not included in the Opposition, and then in an Order directing that the FTigers Oil must prove those issues/matters even though they were never included in the Opposition/Complaint — and thus legally barred from the case, which was already filed out of time. Xiv Appendice ‘A’ (G) Note the violation of equal protection and due process: TTAB’s refusal of supplemental answer, but allowing FTigers Line to introduce issues by a Sham motion that were never included in the Opposition, but included in an order. (H) Refusing to require FTiger Line to answer each and every allegation in the affirmative defenses and counterclaim of FTigers Oil, and thus allowing it to plead on a differént standard than is applied against the FTigers Oil; and refusing to rule and act in ac- cordance with the law specifying that failure to answer or to answer specifically constitutes an admission. (I) Failing and refusing to apply those admissions against the FTiger Line respondent herein. (J) Failing and refusing to acknowledge that said failure to answer constituting admissions amount to grounds for dismissal of the Opposition on the merits, and amount to admissions that the Opposition is per- jurious and the applications and affidavits filed by FTi- ger Line are false. (K) Removing or not entering in the record the pleading of the FTigers Oil itemizing in detail each and every allegation that the FTiger Line failed/refused to answer (which pleading pinpointed unanswered allega- tions and cornered the PTO/TTAB in its consistent illegally favorable acts/crders on behalf of the FTiger Line), which failure to enter pleading of FTigers Oil, or the removal thereof from the record, was discover- ed by the FTigers Oil only from the Certified List finally obtained from the CAFC in Appeal No. 84-602, and which was obviously removed or not entered pre- cisely to make the PTO/TTAB look good on its illegal allowance of FTiger Line to plead a case without ans- wering all the allegations/affirmative defenses of the FTigers Oil, which omission is an act of falsification of the record and fraud for the benefit of FTiger Line. Appendice ‘A’ xv (L) Untruthfully telling the FTigers Oil that the Official Gazette was months behind in publication and thus an extension is allowable, when in fact upon veri- fication with the Government Printing Office there was no such later publication for months pricr to actual pub- lication of November 18, 1980 fcr the mark of the FTigers Oil, except for one day. (M) Making amendments or adjustments in Trade- mark law or Rules of Practice when the Statute specifi- cally states that no amendment can be made that causes , damage to anyone in other words adjustments can be made providing that there is no objection). (N) Denying Motion for Summary Judgment of FTigers Oil even though FTiger Line never filed any opposition thereto; nor separately or in conjunction therewith never answered all the allegations and affir- mative defenses of the FTigers Oil (which was not done because to do so under oath falsely would lead to a case or cases for perjury. and if they told the truth FTiger Line would be admitting that it has no basis for opposition and no basis for their applications to use the name of the FTigers Oil Company and its ‘tiger head logo’.). (O) Issuing an order dated December 22. 1982 and never sending a copy to the FTigers Oil (which was learned only in 1984 when a copy of the certified list was sent to the FTigers Oil by the CAFC showing that order) thus prejudicing the FTigers oil in the prosecu- tion of its Petition to Cancel registrations of the FTigers Line. (P) Refusing to send FTigers Oil copy of said order even after formal request has been made. (Q) Sending another order to the address of the FTiger Line instead of the address of the FTigers Oil Xvi Appendice ‘A’ thus preventing FTigers Oil from knowing what is trans- piring and- what status the PTO/TTAB has given to the case/controversy. _(R)'' Giving to FTiger Line four additional chances to present evidence since the order of December 22, 1982 (serve sent to FTigers Oil), and three additional chances after the FTiger Line completed its evidence without any witnesses, and only one illegible undevipher- able document unidentified and unsigned, with three re- gistrations that are subject to cance!lation proceedings on grounds of perjury, fraud for two and descriptive charac- ter for one, whereas the FTigers Oil would have only one chance — although that is not necessary because the opposition proceedings are illegal in the first place be- cause of having been filed out of time without any written request for extension of time, (which nonexist- ent written request by law must be filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period). (S) Denying various things to the FTigers Oil but quickly and readily granting approximately the same things to FTiger Line, such as copies. and answers to queries. (T) Failing/Refusing to answer repeated requests of FTigers Oil as to whether any deposition has been filed by the FTiger Line. (U) Continuously and consistently demonstrating discrimination against oil and in favor of airline, with all those connote and signify subliminally. (V) Failing/Refusing to Require (FTiger Line to answer allegations of false designation in use of mark ‘FLYING TIGERS’ (owned by the FTigers International and Flying Tigers Oil and Flying Tigers Party in com- mon law) by the FTiger Line. Appendice ‘A’ xvii (W) Violating the VContidentiality of the Applica- tion of FTigers Oil prior to registration by showing and furnishing copy thereof to FTiger Line, (which prior to registration is prohibited by the Trademark Law). (X) Failure to rule and allow Motion for Leave of Court to amend Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim of Petition for Cancellation. (Y) Failure to disqualify Fruge, Rice,-Quegg. Sims, Hutt, Chapman, Mossinghoff after charges of favoritism were failed. (Z) Allowing notarization of affidavit for FTiger Line in proceedings in the PTO when the name of that _ notary is essentially the same as a member of the law firm of FTiger Line, Lyon and Lyon, which is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (AA) Allowing defective oath, contrary to the re- quirements of the Trademark Rules of Practice, fer FTiger Line in proceedings before PTO TTAB. (BB) Failing to publish amendments of rules or proposed amendment of rules in the Official Gazette and Federal Register, beneficial to the FTiger Line and pre- judicial to herein Petitioners. (CC) Giving of legal advice openly to FTiger Line and its counsel and telling them how to prevail over the FTigers Oil. (DD) Allowing private contact with key persons in the PTO/TTAB in order to arrange favorable treat- ment for the FTiger Line. (EE) Failing to inform FTigers Oil cf its decision ’ action on its Motion for Leave of Court to amend its Answer with Counterclaim of cancellation of registra- tions of FTiger Line. XViii Appendice ‘A’ (FF) Failing to inform FTigers Oil of rulings on the filing of various papers by the FTigers Oil. (GG) Failing to report to the FBI the keeping of papers by the FTiger Line that belong to the FTigers Oil and which were sent to the address of FTiger Line. (HH) Refusal to resolve FTigers Oil’s motion for reconsideration of order dated July 15, 1982 denying motion to dismiss. (II) Answering inquiries and requests of FTiger Line always and quickly and formally but not answer- ing those of FTigers Oil. (JJ) failure to resolve Motion for Reconsidera- tion of FTigers Oil of order dated July 15, 1982 on FTiger Line’s simulated mock motion for Summary judg- ment on the two matters introduced thereby but not in issue. (KK) Transforming and considering FTigers Oil’s Motion for Summary Judgment as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings when in fact said motion did not ask for resolution of all the issues in the case before PTO/ TTAB illegally initiated out of time. (LL) Statine that the objection of FTigers Oil to some illegible and undecipherable document without cer- tification was made too late, but which is discretionary under the rules, but allowed FTiger Line to file Op- position/complaint very much out of time, without any written request for extension of time or e Certificate of Mailing, which is not discretionary and fixed by Sta- tute. (MM) Issued an ORDER in letter form that no order should be issued prejudicial to the FTiger Line during an investigation for exclusion of FTiger Line’s Appendice ‘A’ xix counsel for misrepresentation and fraud, but without equal treatment that no order can be issued against the FTigers Oil during the same period. (NN) Whitewashed charge of fraud withcut seeking particulars from FTigers Oil and its counsel, and with- out asking FTigers Oi) for any cvidence that it has to prove the charge. (OO) Placing in ORDER the misrepresentation of the FTiger Line and its counsel, which falsehood is evident from the very document involved, which is in the possession of the PTO/TTAB, thus showing out- right dishonesty, but total subordination to the wishes of the FTiger Line and its counsel. (PP) Failing and refusing to correct said false statement in said order after it was celled to the atten- tion of PTO/TTAB — thus constituting willful falsifi- cation of record against FTigers Oil and in favor of FTiger Line and its counsels. (QQ) Pretended thet the telephone company gave it the address of the FTigers Oil in Phoenix, Arizona, when in fact it was the address of the FTigcr Line, which type ‘mistake’ is inconceivable, unless part of a plan in the PTO/TTAB. (RR) Failed/Refused to send a ccmplete copy cf the Certified List to the FTigers Oil after appeal; and after repeated complaints sent on!y page 3 thereof con- sisting of only three items (which reluctance is un- derstandable since it reveals orders not sent to F Tigers Oil and pleadings of FTigers Oil never resolved, and the material pleading itemizing the admissions by failure to answer of the FTiger Line which was either removed or not entered in the record of the subject case. (SS) Followed a course to effectively eliminate dis- covery for the benefit of the FTiger Line, who has much to hide. xx Appendice ‘A’ (TT) Continually applying the rules against the FTigers Oil even on minor considerations but always setting aside and disregarding the rules for the benefit of the FTiger Line. (UU) Failing and refusing to apply the rules on defaults and admission against the FTiger Line. (VV) Failing to rule that when the FTiger Line does not oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment of the FTigers Oil that is a type of default not subject to arbitrary disregard by the PTO/TTAB. (WW) Failing to rule that a default by FTiger Line on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by FTigers Oil in regard to ‘failure of FTiger Line to deny a- verments of FTigers Oil’ constitutes admissions and @ triple default because the FTiger Line had already pre- viously failed to deny the same materia] averments when specified in the affirmative defenses and Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss of the FTigers Oil. (XX) Committing the wrongdoing cited in Ques- tions 'Presented 27 (00) in the Brief of FTigers Oil in its Brief in Appeal 84-602 before CAFC. (YY) (Committing the wrongdoing and acts and failures to act of favoritism cited in Questions Present- ed No. 27 (PP. to III inclusive) in the Brief of FTigers Oil in Appeal No. 84-602 before the CAFC. (ZZ) Took over one year to send copies of Re- gistrations of Appellee 1,004,930, and 969.394 and 999,837 to herein Appellant; (AAA) never sent Appellant copy of ORDER dated December 22, 1982, C.L. No. 31 initially; and never sent copy when specifically requested after Appellant learn- ed about such an ORDER from Page 2 of the Certi- fied List received in January, 1984 (apparently after CAFC or its clerk took some action) ; ‘ Fa 4 4 q .- =. \ er Appendice ‘A’ xxi (BBB) never sent copy of ORDER CL No. 31 after request for copy by Applicant when latter read of ‘re- ference to previous settings of trial dates of which Ap- pellant had no knowledge; (CCC) never sent pages 1 and 2 of Certified List until apparently somebody intervened; (DDD) never forwarded at expense of Appellant after at least two requests certified copies or plain copies of complete file wrapper of Applicant-Appellant and 3 Registrations cited No. 1 above; (EEE) asked for information two times on filing of any deposition by Appellee yet never replied; (FFF) never included Appellant’s REPLY TO OP- POSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION in Certified list, and a Part of Appellant’s MOTION FOR Summary Judgment by reference and listing all the pa- ragraphs or averments not answered or denied by OP- POSER-APPELLEE; (GGG) sent papers belonging to Appellant to ad- dress of Appellee; (HHH) continually complains against Appellant about mere metters of form but fails to rule against Appellee at any time on any thing even major violations of the rules and even when it concedes a major mo- tion by failure to oppose; (III) typically, in ORDER dated January 27. 1984 OF F/PAT/TTAB directs all its criticism against An- pellant despite fact that Appellee has filed more papers during that period than Appellant. 56. How many times can (PTO/TTAB deny or re- fuse requests by one or more of the herein Petitioners for documents in and information on the trial of 63,986 xxii Appendice ‘A’ before the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of one or more of petitioners is considered violated by the United States Supreme Court, particular- ly said rights of the Flying Tigers Oil Company, Inc. a party to said case? 57. Statute law and case law prohibit registration as trademark descriptive words or phrases such as ‘Long Island Railroad’, and ‘Steel Window Mfg.’ thus the registration cf the wcerds ‘Flying Tiger Line’ is illegal: Is the influence exerted by the FTiger Line on the PTO/TTAB and later the CAFC to first register an obviously prohibited descritive phrase and then to refuse to consider and resolve even one single issue in appeal No. 84-602 and the petition for Certiorari/ Mandamus, Prohibition/Declaratory Relief including the immediate cancellation of registration of said descriptive phrase legal influence legally and constitutionally ap- plied? 58. Is it equal protection for the PTO/TTAB to allow an opposition to be given due course after filing out of time and barred by statute and then declare by order that FTigers Oil’s Supplemental Answer (Peti- tioner herein being forced to answer) is ruled out as well as its affirmative defenses as part of the plead'ngs? 59. Is it equal protection for the PTO/TTAB to rule out by order (see appendice ‘G’, pp. xxxiv-xxxvili) the supplemental answer on grounds that there was no for- mal motion but having already given due course to the opposition filed out of time and barred by statute even though FTiger Line never even filed a request for ex- tension of time, which is a condition precedent of the law before an extension can be allowed and which must be filed before the 30-day period from publication ex- pires? 60. Is it equal pretection for the PTO/TTAB to refuse to rule on the motion for leave to file supple- mental answer after it is filed? Appendice ‘A’ xxiii 61. Is it equal protection for the PTO/TTAB to rule out as pleading the supplemental answer and ex- hibits and affirmative defenses while in effect allowing FTiger Line to amend its opposition (already filed out of time and illegally given due course) by filing a Sham Motion for Summary Judgment introducing two new issues therein not stated in the opposition (see order appendice “G’ pp. xxxiv-xxxviii) ? 62. Is it equal protection for the PTO/TTAB to falsify its orders, including the simulation of a falsifica- tion to disparage FTigers -Oil when it has the original records on the application end is charged with full knowledge that no such falsification exists as stated falsely by American Counsel for FTiger Line? (See Motion for Reconsideration in Appendix in 84-602 in CAFC). 63. Is it equal protection to give FTiger Line three chances to present evidence in chief and the FTigers Oil only one chance? 64. Is it equal protection for the PTO/TTAB to give written suggestions or instructions on how to win the eass ts eovnsel for FTiger Line while refusing to even send copies of orders and essential Mnformation for- mal'y requested to the FTigers Oil? 65. Is it not logical when statute law is violated hy the PTO/TTAB and FTiger Line on getting an opposition admitted and given due course out of time and barred by statute that a long successions of illegal 5 acts by both FTiger Line and the (PTO/TTAB are inevi- table and must be protected in order to sustain the ® original criminal and illegal act cf conspiracy to vio- late the trademark law? Xxiv APPENDIX Appendice ‘C’ Note: This opinion will not be published in a printed volume because it does not add significantly to the body of law and is not of widespread legal interest. It is a public record. It is not citable as precedent. The de- cision will appear in tables published periodically. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Appeal No. 84-602 THE’FLYING TIGERS OIL COMPANY, INC., Appellant, Vv. THE FLYING TIGER LINE, INC... Appellee. DECIDED: October 5, 1984 Before KASHIWA, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and NIES, Circuit Judge. DECISION The Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. seeks review of va- rious preliminary decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) in connection with Opposition No. 63,986, including the board’s denial of its motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The appeal being premature, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, the Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. All other motions are dismissed as moot. ABLE COPY Appendice ‘C’ xxv DISCUSSION The jurisdictio.. of this court to entertain appea!'s from the board is derived from 15 U.S.C. § 1071 (a) (1), which provides in pertinent part: “An applicant for re- gistration of a mark ... who is dissatisfied with the decision of the . . . Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ... May appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. .. .” (emphasis added). In United States Treasuwiy v. Synthetic Plastics C., 341 F.2d 157, 144 USPQ 429, 429-430 (CCPA 1965), it was held that the term “decision” in the present con- text, “means a dispositive decision in which a right has been adjudicated.”! The denial of a motion to dismiss is not dispositive. See Wagner Shokai, Ins. v. Kabush ki Kaisha Wako, 699 F.2d 1390, 217 USPQ 98 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and cases cited therein. Nor does the denial of a motion for summary judg- ment give rise to an appealable decision. R. G. Barry Corp. v. Mushradom Makers, Inc., 609 F.2d 1002, 204 USPQ 195 (CCPA 1979). lt does not adjudicate a right nor is ic dispositive of any issue in the proceeding. Since there has been no “decision” within the meaning of i5 USC. § 1071(a)(1), this court has no jurisdiction over the present appeal based upon that section. A mere charge that the board has committed errors pro- vides no basis of this court’s jurisdiction under § 1071 (a)(1). This court reviews final decisions of the board. We are not empowered to exercise supervisory authority during proceedings. Alternatively, appellant seeks a writ of mandamus directing the board to dismiss Opposition No. 63,986, and 1 This court has succeeded to the jurisdiction of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-164, § 127 (a), 96 Stat. 25, 38, and has adopted its precedents. South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Xxvi Appendice ‘C’ to register appellant’s mark. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act, this court is empowered to issue writs are “necessary or appropriate in aid of” its jurisdiction. The issuance of a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which has been granted by this court only in limited circumstances. Mandamus is not appropriate merely to circumvent normal appeal procedures. Appellant argues that mandamus is justified in this case because appellee’s opposition papers were asserted- ly “filed out of time.” Allowing the opposition to proceed, therefore, purportedly exceeds the power of the board and violates a variety of appellant’s constitutional rights. Having reviewed the board’s actions in the oppo- sition proceeding, however, we see nothing that might frustrate our potential jurisdiction over this case. More particularily, the timeliness issue, if properly raised be- fore the board, could be reviewed on appeal.. See In re Precision Screen Machines, Inc., 729 F.2d 1428, 1429, 221 USPQ 1034, 1034-1035 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellant’s petition. for a writ of mandamus is, accordingly, denied. In an order dated March 22, 1984, this court grant- ed Mr. Alberto C. Soriano permission to represent The Flying Tigers Oil Company, Inc. in this appeal. Mr. Soriano has filed numerous papers which indicate a lack of familiarity with this court’s functions, procedures and standards for counsel. Mr. Soriano’s right to rep- resent appellant terminates with this decision by the court. The court advises The Flying Tigers Oi] Com pany, Inc., that it must be represented by an attorney who is a member of the bar of this court in any fu- ture matters brought before us. OO eee eee eee \ APPENDIX XXvil Appendice ‘C-1’ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT THE FLYING TIGERS OIL CO., INC., Appellant, Appeal No. 84-602 v. On Motion to THE FLYING TIGER LINE. Intervene INC., Appellee. ORDER The motion of Morton F. Meads and/or Flying Ti- gers International filed March 12, 1984, for leave to in- tervene is denied. In view of the order of this court dated March 22, 1984, admitting Mr. Albert C. Soriano to the bar of this court pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing on behalf of appellant in the above-captioned appeal, the need set forth in the motion for leave to intervene is obviated. FOR THE COURT Marion T. Bennett Circuit Judge March 30, 1984 XXViii APPENDIX Appendice ‘C-2’ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT THE FLYING TIGERS OIL CO., \ INC., Appellant, | Appeal No. 84-602 Vv. On Motion to \ Intervene THE FLYING TIGER LINE, INC., Appellee. ORDER The motion of Robert Zlomke filed March 12, 1984, for leave to intervene is denied. In view of the order of this court dated March 22, 1984, admitting Mr. Albert C. Soriano to the bar of this court pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing on behalf of appellant in the above-captioned appeal, the need set forth in the motion for leave to intervene is obviated. FOR THE COURT Marion T. Bennett Circuit Judge March 30, 1984 APPENDIX XXix Apnendice ‘D’ Is a notice dated February 13, 1981 that due course has been given to an opposition filed on January 5, 1981 (Out of Time), and that the Flying Tigers Oil Com- pany, Inc. must answer. This is made an appendice by reference to the record of the PTO/TTAB, copy of which the petitioners do not have. See the Certified List. Petitioners cannct supply a copy thereof because the Patents Office refuse to send copies of orders to us, and refuses to answer letters of cne or more of the petitioners, on the subject of this case. This document is made an appendice by reference to how the ‘decision’ to give due course to an opposi- tion filed out of time and therefore inadmissible by statute law, and thus the commissioner/PTO/TTAB have no discretion because no request for extension of time was filed before the expiration of the due date for an opposition, which date must be within the 30-day period after date of publication, which date is Novem- ber 18, 1980. Appendice ‘FE’ Is a notice dated March 6, 1981 that due course has been given to an Cpposition Filed on January 5, 1981 (out of time), and. that the Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. must answer. The same statements above for Appendice ‘D’ also apply to this appendice. Appendice ‘H’ Is an Order dated December 22. 1982. the exact contents of which are not known to petitioners because a copy thereof was never delivered to Flying Tigers XXX Appendices ‘B’, ‘D’, ‘E’ & ‘H’ Oil Co., Inc. and herein petiticners only came to know about the order from the Certified List furnished by the clerk of court of the CAFC, after months of eva- sion by the PTO/TTAB. From the Certified List there is the indication that it is an order that denies some- thing and sets trial dates. The Certified List is in the Record of Appeal 84-602, and also in this Appen+ dix. The Flying Tigers Oil Co., Inc. has requested co- pies of that order from the patents office TTAB but they have refused to send it. which is just one of the many documents and official information about this case which have been requested but which the PTO/TTAB has refused to send tto one or more of the herein peti- tioners. Thus necessiitating making said order an ap- pendice by ‘Reference’ to the record of the PTO/TTAB. Appendice ‘B’ Appendice ‘B’ is the list of Questions Presented in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This appendice is by reference to the Questions presented actually filed in the CAFC. Reference is also made to the same list filed as Appendice ‘B’ of the Tynewritten Petition for Certiorari filed by Petitioner Robert Zlomke in the Flying Tiger Line and its counsel] has four copies, the the printed petition on the same subject matter of various petitioners. The CAFC has 24 copies of this Appendice. the Flying Tige Line andi ts counsel has four copies. the PTO/TTAB has the Questions through the Notice of [Appeal and QP copy of which was sent to that office. APPENDIX xXxxl Appendice ‘F’ US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARK s Washington, D.C. 20231 Opposition No. 63,986 MAILED The Flyirg Tig [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_1768%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.