Federal Circuit disposition — 24-105

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: CHARLES BERTINI,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-105
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in No. 92068213.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Charles Bertini petitions for a writ of mandamus di-
recting the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) to decide his pending petition to cancel one of Apple
Inc.’s marks and award him attorney fees. Apple and the
Director of the PTO oppose. Mr. Bertini replies.
In 2016, Mr. Bertini filed an opposition against Apple’s
application to register APPLE MUSIC for services in class
41. During those proceedings, Mr. Bertini petitioned to
cancel Apple’s APPLE mark for services in the same class.
In both, Mr. Bertini alleged prior rights and ownership of
an application for the mark APPLE JAZZ.
Case: 24-105 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/23/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: BERTINI 2
In April 2021, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
dismissed the opposition proceeding. Mr. Bertini appealed
that decision to this court. In April 2023, this court issued
a decision reversing the Board’s dismissal and subse-
quently denied rehearing in July 2023. On October 4, 2023,
the time for Apple to file a petition for a writ of certiorari
from that decision to the Supreme Court expired.
Meanwhile, the Board suspended the cancellation pro-
ceedings in February 2022 pending the appeal in the oppo-
sition proceedings, noting that “a ruling on the appeal may
have a bearing on the issues before the Board in” the can-
cellation proceeding. Appx20. On November 13, 2023, af-
ter this petition was filed, the Board terminated the
opposition proceedings with Apple’s registration refused
and lifted the suspension, stating that these proceedings
“will be decided in due course.” SAppx725.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
lished standard for obtaining such relief, a petitioner must:
(1) show that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief;
(2) show he does not have any other adequate method of
obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is
appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
Mr. Bertini has not met that demanding standard.
While it is true that Mr. Bertini filed these cancellation
proceedings years ago, we cannot say that the Board
clearly abused its discretion in staying these proceedings
pending resolution of the opposition proceedings, particu-
larly given Mr. Bertini himself argued in favor of their re-
latedness. Nor can we say that the Board has
unreasonably delayed the proceedings since that time, as
the Board has lifted the stay and indicated that a decision
will be issued in due course, which we expect will be issued
promptly.
Case: 24-105 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/23/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: BERTINI 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
January 23, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-105 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 01/23/2024

-- 3 of 3 --