Alberto Solar Somohano v. the Coca-Cola Company

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ALBERTO SOLAR SOMOHANO,
Appellant
WHO,
Applicant
v.
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
Appellee
UNITED STATES,
Intervenor
______________________
2019-2414
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
91224621, 91224653.
______________________
Decided: September 16, 2021
______________________
ALBERTO S OLAR SOMOHANO, Miami, FL, pro se.
J OHN C. RAWLS , Baker Williams Matthiesen LLP, Hou-
ston, TX, for appellee. Also represented by SARAH ANNE
Case: 19-2414 Document: 108 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2021

-- 1 of 3 --

SOLAR SOMOHANO v. COCA- COLA COMPANY 2
SILBERT .
J ENNIFER U TRECHT , Appellate Staff, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON,
SCOTT R. M CI NTOSH , MELISSA N. P ATTERSON; T HOMAS L.
CASAGRANDE, SARAH E. CRAVEN, CHRISTINA J. HIEBER ,
T HOMAS W. K RAUSE, F ARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office
of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Of-
fice, Alexandria, VA.
______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
On October 29, 2015, Appellee The Coca-Cola Com-
pany filed a Notice of Opposition in the Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board, opposing an application by Appellant
Alberto Solar Somohano and co-applicant WHO to register
the trademark “COLA DE COKI” on the Principal Register.
J.A. 49–60; U.S. Trademark Appl. Serial No. 86/633,923.
On July 10, 2019, the Board dismissed the Opposition after
noting that Appellant’s application was abandoned and
that the deadline to revive the application had expired.
The Coca-Cola Co. v. WHO & Alberto Somohano-Soler,
Opp. No. 91224621, 2019 WL 3061382, at *1 (T.T.A.B.
July 10, 2019) [J.A. 1]. Appellants challenge the dismissal.
To establish Article III standing to bring an appeal, the
appellant has the burden of showing that he has “suffered
an injury in fact that has a nexus to the challenged conduct
and that can be ameliorated by the court.” Gen. Elec. Co.
v. United Techs. Corp., 928 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2019). Consequently, “[a] party that is not adversely af-
fected by a judgment lacks standing to appeal.” TypeRight
Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1156
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Where an appellant
Case: 19-2414 Document: 108 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2021

-- 2 of 3 --

SOLAR SOMOHANO v. COCA- COLA COMPANY 3
lacks standing, it follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide
the appeal. Id.
Appellant fails to establish standing to appeal. The
Board’s dismissal of Coca-Cola’s Opposition did not ad-
versely affect Appellant. “[A] party cannot appeal from a
decree in his own favor.” Corning v. Troy Iron & Nail Fac-
tory, 56 U.S. 451, 463 (1853). Because dismissal was in Ap-
pellant’s favor, Appellant lacks standing to appeal, and we
lack jurisdiction. This appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 19-2414 Document: 108 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2021

-- 3 of 3 --