Milo Shammas v. Michelle Lee, No. 16-1656 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1656 MILO SHAMMAS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHELLE LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB) Submitted: March 23, 2017 Decided: March 31, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Steffin, Armin Azod, Century City, California, Mark Baker, STEFFIN AZOD LLP, New York, New York; Carl E. Jennison, John N. Jennison, JENNISON & SHULTZ, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Freeman, Jaynie Lilley, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Nathan K. Kelley, Solicitor, Thomas W. Krause, Deputy Solicitor, Christina J. Hieber, Thomas L. Casagrande, Associate Solicitors, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Milo Shammas appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment awarding expenses in this trademark action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shammas v. Lee, No. 1:12-cv-01462-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. May 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.