A Mosaic of Consumer Fraud

by | Feb 28, 2025 | 0 comments

stoxdox Motion for Self-Representation Rights

stoxdox, Inc. (stoxdox) requests its right to self-representation in case number 25-1267 in the Appeal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruling in Opposition case number 91272514 (Applicant v. STOXX LTD, Opposer, Mark: STOXDOX, Serial No. 90359786, Filed: December 4, 2020). This motion explicitly requests that the court allow Brian J. Kapp, CFA, stoxdox Co-Founder and CEO, the right to self-represent stoxdox in case number 25-1267.

stoxdox and its owners’ constitutional rights would be violated if it may not represent itself in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in case number 25-1267. Brian J. Kapp confirmed with the Clerk’s Office on the morning of December 20, 2024 that granting stoxdox its right to self-representation would cure the December 19, 2024 Notice of Non-Compliance issued in response to stoxdox’s Notice of Unrepresented Person (Form 8b), Certificate of Interest (Form 9), and Docketing Statement (Form 26).

Attached herein are two documents which support and prove the near impossibility of stoxdox being able to find legal representation in the first instance, let alone legal representation that would have the required specific knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations that is required to appeal the United States Patent and Trademark Office ruling in Opposition case number 91272514.

The first document was originally included as the additional information page to stoxdox’s Certificate of Interest. It provides a numbered summary list supporting the impossibility of stoxdox, Inc. being able to find legal representation in the first instance, let alone legal representation that would have the required specific knowledge to Appeal the United States Patent and Trademark Office ruling in Opposition case number 91272514.

The second document was originally filed as part of stoxdox’s Notice of Appeal filed with the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which was docketed on December 10, 2024. It was also attached as additional information as part of stoxdox’s Docketing Statement, Form 9, in answer to the question: “Issues to be raised on appeal.”

In reviewing the information herein, please note that stoxdox is not asking the court to consider or decide on criminal activity as part of stoxdox’s appeal in case number 25-1267. stoxdox is only seeking an overturn of the USPTO decision in Opposition case number 91272514.

The 804 request to stay the final USPTO decision pending a law review is part of the USPTO record and was denied by the USPTO thus finalizing its decision. The document highlights stoxdox’s foundational vector of appeal, knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations. Knowledge of such laws is required for stoxdox’s appeal as it speaks directly to the validity of Stoxx Ltd.’s evidentiary foundation upon which Stoxx Ltd.’s USPTO Opposition case rests.

The Question posed following the USPTO 804 Request highlights another key vector of stoxdox’s appeal: the consumer market. Again, knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations is required for the appeal.

Such knowledge speaks directly to the lack of, and legitimacy of, any link between Stoxx Ltd. and the consumer market, which is a foundational issue on appeal.

Following the Question posed is a condensed list of Stoxx Ltd.’s testimonial and rebuttal evidence from the USPTO Opposition case. The numbered testimony and rebuttals highlight the critical nature that knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations plays in stoxdox’s appeal of the USPTO decision in Opposition case number 91272514.

Originally Filed: stoxdox Certificate of Interest – Additional Page

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20439

Please accept this statement of additional information attached to stoxdox, Inc.’s (stoxdox) Certificate of Interest. The Certificate of Interest and this statement of stoxdox facts demonstrate the need for self-representation and are required for organizational victims:

  1. stoxdox is 100% owned and financed by Brian J. Kapp and Emma S. Kapp, spouses.
  2. stoxdox’s headquarters and only office is located in their personal home. There are no other employees or interested parties at or to stoxdox besides Brian and Emma Kapp.
  3. stoxdox’s Appeal of the USPTO Opposition No. 91272514 decision requires specific knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations.
  4. As a matter of general business practices, confirmed over four years of interacting with many law firms during the USPTO Opposition, lawyers and law firms do not have the specific knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations which is required to Appeal the USPTO decision.
  5. The lawyers involved in the USPTO Opposition case, including stoxdox’s law firm which resigned and the Opposer’s law firm, did not and do not have the required specific knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations.
  6. Brian J. Kapp, CFA is an expert in the financial industry and has the required specific knowledge of U.S. securities laws and European Union Benchmark Regulations.
  7. stoxdox has been drained of funds by four years of sham litigation and confessions to illegal financial market activity at the USPTO; stoxdox cannot afford legal representation.
  8. Legal representation without the required specific knowledge would violate stoxdox’s and its owners’ rights and lead to a miscarriage of justice as happened at the USPTO.
  9. stoxdox’s and its owners’ rights were violated by lawyers and law firms involved in the USPTO Opposition, including stoxdox’s law firm which resigned and the Opposer’s firm.
  10. stoxdox filed crime reports and ethics complaints with the USPTO, lawyers, law firms, and the Opposer, a sophisticated financial institution, between June and October 2023.
  11. All crime reports and ethics complaints were ignored or stricken from the record as was the case with stoxdox’s Judicial Notices of September and October of 2023.
  12. Due to the crime reports and ethics complaints, stoxdox was functionally “blackballed” by the legal community and required self-representation beginning in September 2023.
  13. stoxdox’s and its owners’ speech rights were officially confiscated at the USPTO in October 2023 at the request of the Opposer and its law firm.
  14. Lawyers and law firms have a Conflict of Interest with stoxdox, they cannot “go after one of their own” without destroying their peer reputation and professional prospects.

Originally Filed: stoxdox Notice of Appeal – Attached to Docketing Statement

stoxdox Appeal of USPTO Decision to Circuit Court

stoxdox, Inc. appeals the USPTO ruling in Opposition No. 91272514 Applicant v. STOXX LTD, Opposer, Mark: STOXDOX, Serial No. 90359786, Filed: December 4, 2020, on the following grounds.

stoxdox 804 Request to Stay USPTO Decision pending law review

The Board’s decision is in grave error. In fact the board has been misled and lied to by the Opposer throughout this trial process. This is factually a sham trial.

The Opposer’s testimony, the foundation upon which the Opposer’s claims and case rest, is a factual gross misrepresentation of what the Opposer is, what it does, and the nature of its business, as a highly regulated European Union Benchmark Administrator.

In fact, though stoxdox is in the media industry and not in the Benchmark Administrator financial subindustry like the Opposer, I am an expert in the financial industry. I have 30 years of experience across the financial industry spectrum as outlined in my testimony. I have worked at UBS and Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, which are likely the Opposer’s clients, though they may not be the Opposer’s clients.

I have been a Chartered Financial Analyst, or “CFA” for 18 of my 30 professional years. The literal job and skillset of a Chartered Financial Analyst is to analyze and understand companies and industries. Additionally, CFAs are professionals who analyze the financial markets, including “stocks.” As such, I know exactly what an EU Benchmark Administrator is.

As an expert, I know that the Opposer has committed factual criminal perjury and has grossly misrepresented itself to the USPTO. It is black and white, in writing, in the Opposer’s own testimony and rebuttals. This is self-evident to an expert in the financial industry and its subindustries, such as the Benchmark Administrator subindustry.

In fact, much of the Opposer’s testimony is factual criminal perjury. As a result of the Opposer’s gross misrepresentations and criminal perjury, stoxdox is in year four of having its constitutional rights grotesquely violated at the USPTO.

Our free speech has been removed at every turn as a result of the criminal perjury masquerading as fact in the Opposer’s testimony and rebuttals. As a result, we have been subjected to an alternative reality at the USPTO, a complete fabrication by the Opposer. Being brutally honest, we have been psychologically and financially raped by the Opposer at the USPTO.

stoxdox is demanding that its constitutional rights be upheld, and that its speech be heard. In addition, we ask that this crime scene, reported by a financial industry expert, be reported to law enforcement. This is factually a sham trial, a crime scene. To see the crime scene, one must only understand what an EU Benchmark Administrator is.

As such, stoxdox asks the board to stay its decision until a proper law enforcement investigation is completed.

To uphold a decision based on a foundation of fraud, misrepresentations, criminal perjury, and the resulting constitutional rights violations would be a gross violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens.

stoxdox asks the board to report the trial as a crime scene, a crime scene reported to the board by a financial industry expert. stoxdox asks the board to report the crime scene to federal law enforcement and stay the decision pending such proper law enforcement investigation.

Please note, “STOCKS” is used in place of Stoxx, Ltd. herein to highlight the only commonality between stoxdox and “STOCKS,” different spelling variants of a generic word used trillions of times daily: “STOCKS”.

The Question

May an EU Benchmark Administrator offer or promote products and services to the consumer market?

  • As a matter of law, U.S. securities laws and EU Benchmark Regulations (BMRs), “STOCKS,” an EU Benchmark Administrator, may not.
  • If “STOCKS” may not legally offer or promote products and services to the consumer market, then it is illegal to claim to do so at the USPTO. It is also illegal to claim to target the promotion of securities, investment advisory services, and investment research to the consumer market at the USPTO, where it is illegal in the marketplace.
  • As such, “STOCKS’S” USPTO testimonial and rebuttal evidence forms a Mosaic of Securities, Investment Advisory, and Media Fraud. A Mosaic of Consumer Fraud.
  • Qontigo’s website disclosure found in stoxdox testimony #78 is coherent with EU BMRs and U.S. securities laws prohibiting “STOCKS” from offering or promoting financial products and services which reference a benchmark or any other security.
  • stoxdox USPTO testimonial #78: “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that it may not “sponsor, endorse, sell or promote products which reference “STOCKS” indices,” or “recommend that any person invest in the products which reference “STOCKS” indices or any other securities.” The disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices no statements are being made about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) the market and/or economic reality an index is trying to represent or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”

“STOCKS” USPTO Testimonial Evidence – Condensed / Paraphrased

“STOCKS” – Applicant Mark – Framework

  1. “STOCKS” declares under perjury laws of The United States of America and 28 U.S.C. §1746 that it offers & promotes consumer products and services.
  2. Use of stoxdox is damaging “STOCKS” & its valuable rights in the consumer market; consumers are likely to be confused & believe stoxdox is “STOCKS,” the EU Benchmark Administrator.
  • By law “STOCKS” may not offer or promote consumer products and services. If “STOCKS” did target the consumer market as it claims to do at the USPTO, “STOCKS” would be in violation of U.S. securities laws and EU Benchmark Regulations (BMRs).
  • Regarding the BMRs in particular and the consumer market, “STOCKS” would be in violation of the primary purpose of the BMRs, “Conflicts of Interest” and the “Manipulation of Benchmarks;” Line 1, page 1 of the BMRs.
  • “STOCKS” has inherent “Conflicts of Interest” with the consumer market.
  • See stoxdox testimony section #74 to #80: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGULATIONS GOVERN “STOCKS”
  • stoxdox testimony #75: Avoid conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are the reason for the manipulation of indices; it occurs if the business that sells (advertises and promotes) index-linked products also compiles the benchmark for the products – if the index administrator is also a product issuer.
  • Of note, “STOCKS” engages in the manipulation of what an EU Benchmark Administrator is and what benchmarks are in its USPTO testimony and rebuttals. They are not “Authorized Financial Instruments,” securities.
  • “STOCKS” is thus manipulating benchmarks and is in violation of the BMRs at the USPTO.
  • To prove “STOCKS” illegally offers consumers financial products and services and a broad array of consumer media and analysis “STOCKS” testifies to violating U.S. securities laws and EU Benchmark Regulations at the USPTO.

“STOCKS” – Background and Foundation – False Statement

  1. The performance of the securities being tracked EQUATES TO THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET THAT IS REPRESENTED by the grouping of stocks, bonds, or investments that make up the index.
  • Violates Qontigo’s own website disclaimer found in stoxdox testimony #78: “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices NO STATEMENTS ARE BEING MADE about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) THE MARKET AND/OR ECONOMIC REALITY AN INDEX IS TRYING TO REPRESENT or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”

“STOCKS” & Its Family of “STOCKS” Marks – False Statements – Securities Law Violations

  1. Along with Qontigo, “STOCKS” provides a suite of front-to-back investment management solutions.
  2. “STOCKS” has been using its mark in connection with its investment solutions & financial analysis.
  3. “STOCKS” is well known for its innovative approach to financial services and investment strategies.
  4. “STOCKS” True Exposure indices are based on strategic asset allocation & PROVIDE OPTIMAL BALANCE BETWEEN EXPECTED RISK AND RETURN.
  • “STOCKS” testifies to illegally offering and promoting Investment Advisory Services, Securities, Investment Research, and Financial Services.
  • Qontigo’s website disclosure found in stoxdox testimony #78 is coherent with EU BMRs and U.S. securities laws prohibiting “STOCKS” from offering or promoting financial products and services which reference a benchmark or any other security. Such things and capabilities are required if one offers a “suite of front-to-back investment management solutions” or “investment solutions” of any kind, let alone financial services and investment strategies to the consumer market.
  • stoxdox testimonial #78: “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that it may not “sponsor, endorse, sell or promote products which reference “STOCKS” indices,” or “recommend that any person invest in the products which reference “STOCKS” indices or any other securities.” The disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices NO STATEMENTS ARE BEING MADE about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) the market and/or economic reality an index is trying to represent or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”

“STOCKS” – Licensing & Use of the “STOCKS” Mark – False Statement – Illegal Securities Sales

  1. “STOCKS’S” license gives the Licensees the right to issue, distribute, have listed, trade, and advertise the Authorized Financial Instruments.
  2. The Authorized Financial Instruments can be in the form of a variety of financial products, including ETFs.
  • “STOCKS” confirms the “Authorized Financial Instruments” which it claims to offer and promote are securities, which is illegal for an EU Benchmark Administrator.
  • As a matter of fact, it is BlackRock and American Century that create and convey the right to issue, distribute, have listed, trade, and advertise the “Authorized Financial Instruments” in accordance with securities laws. It is not a “STOCKS” benchmark license that creates and conveys such rights.
  • BlackRock changed the Benchmark Administrator to “STOCKS” from MSCI Inc. on the “Authorized Financial Instruments” listed in “STOCKS” testimony #32 in June 2022 and March 2023. The securities are independent of “STOCKS” or any other benchmark administration provider. The securities are certainly not Authorized and Branded by “STOCKS,” the EU Benchmark Administrator:
      • iShares Global Equity Factor ETF
      • iShares Emerging Markets Equity Factor ETF
      • iShares U.S. Small-Cap Equity Factor ETF
      • iShares International Small-Cap Equity Factor ETF
      • iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF
      • iShares International Equity Factor ETF
  • The distinction, “BlackRock-branded securities” versus “’STOCKS’-branded benchmark administration services”, changes the meaning of everything in the USPTO trial while exposing the perjury and gross misrepresentations by “STOCKS.”
  • American Century fired “STOCKS” and changed the Benchmark Administrator to Russell from “STOCKS” on the two “Authorized Financial Instruments” listed in “STOCKS’S” testimony #32 following “STOCKS’S” March 15, 2023 testimony. The securities are independent of “STOCKS” or any benchmark administration provider. The securities are certainly not Authorized and Branded by “STOCKS,” the EU Benchmark Administrator:
      • American Century Quality Growth ETF: Fired “STOCKS” and replaced it with Russell post “STOCKS’S” March 15, 2023 testimony.
      • American Century U.S. Quality Value ETF: Fired “STOCKS” and replaced it with Russell post “STOCKS’S” March 15, 2023 testimony.

“STOCKS” confirms the “Authorized Financial Instruments” which it claims to offer and promote are securities, which is illegal for an EU Benchmark Administrator.

“STOCKS” – Advertising & Promotion – False Statements – Securities Law Violations

  1. “STOCKS” substantially promotes products offered under its Marks.
  2. “STOCKS” promotes products under Marks. Due to the nature of the products, “STOCKS” relies heavily on its website and website content for the promotion of Authorized Financial Instruments.
  3. “STOCKS’S” website promotes & offers products under the “STOCKS” Marks.
  4. “STOCKS” promotes its Authorized Financial Instruments on social media.
  5. Continuous and countless promotions of “STOCKS’S” Authorized Financial Instruments.
  6. “STOCKS” promoted investment solutions offered under the “STOCKS” Mark.
  7. Massive billboards were strategically placed to expose millions of consumers to investment solutions offered under “STOCKS’S” marks.
  8. Billboards promoting “STOCKS’S” investment solutions.
  9. “STOCKS” promoted its investment solutions online.
  10. “STOCKS” promotes products under its Marks.
  11. In addition to “STOCKS” promoting products under its Marks, Licensees promote “STOCKS’S” Authorized Financial Instruments, thus even more consumers are exposed to “STOCKS.”
  • “STOCKS” testifies to illegally offering and promoting Investment Advisory Services and Securities.
  • Qontigo’s website disclosure found in stoxdox testimony #78 is coherent with EU BMRs and U.S. securities laws prohibiting “STOCKS” from offering or promoting financial products and services which reference a benchmark or any other securities.
  • stoxdox testimonial #78. “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that it may not “sponsor, endorse, sell or promote products which reference “STOCKS” indices,” or “recommend that any person invest in the products which reference “STOCKS” indices or any other securities.” The disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices no statements are being made about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) the market and/or economic reality an index is trying to represent or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”

“STOCKS” – Media Attention – False Statements – Nature of Media and Index Price Quotes

  1. Extensive unsolicited media attention.
  2. Featured in the media.
  3. Global news sources continuously advertise & promote “STOCKS’S” indices & Authorized Financial Instruments.
  4. The media features “STOCKS’S” indices & Authorized Financial Instruments.
  5. CNBC discusses “STOCKS” Europe 600.
  6. “STOCKS” and its CEOs are featured in the media to discuss financial market conditions.
  • The financial media provides price quotes for everything under the sun, “STOCKS” is not special in an infinite sea of daily financial price quotes. The media is MERELY PUBLISHING OR REFERING TO A BENCHMARK (see BMRs). The media is not advertising and promoting “STOCKS” by providing benchmark price quotes.
  • stoxdox testimony #79-80: The regulatory regime does not permit “STOCKS” to engage the marketplace as a financial media brand and company. Conversely, the BMRs do not apply to “the press, other media, and journalists where THEY MERELY PUBLISH OR REFER TO A BENCHMARK as part of their journalistic activities with no control over the provision of that benchmark.” Media companies are covered on page 4 number (16) and page 13 Article 2 number 2 (e) of the BMRs. stoxdox, as a media company, is not subject to the BMRs. Again, “STOCKS” is.
  • stoxdox testimonial #78. “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that it may not “sponsor, endorse, sell or promote products which reference “STOCKS” indices,” or “recommend that any person invest in the products which reference “STOCKS” indices or any other securities.” The disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices no statements are being made about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) the market and/or economic reality an index is trying to represent or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”

“STOCKS” – Testimony Rebuttal – False Statements – Securities Law Violations

  1. “STOCKS” declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and 28 U.S.C. §1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.
  • Targeting the consumer market: If “STOCKS” may not legally offer or promote products and services to the consumer market, then it is illegal to claim to do so at the USPTO.
  • It is also illegal to claim to target the promotion of securities and investment advisory services to the consumer market at the USPTO when such activity is in fact illegal.
  • “STOCKS’S” Testimony Rebuttal amounts to the illegal promotion of securities to the consumer market. “STOCKS,” the EU Benchmark Administrator, is literally selling securities to consumers at the USPTO.
  1. “STOCKS” Licensees can issue, list, and offer the Authorized Financial Instruments for trading on stock exchanges.
  2. “STOCKS’S” Licensees offer the Authorized Financial Products.
  3. “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products have had significant trading volumes.
  4. “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products have been traded on U.S. exchanges.
  5. stoxdox contends that “STOCKS’S” consumers are limited to “STOCKS’S” Licensees, and that individual investors cannot be consumers of “STOCKS’S” products and services. Not accurate, “STOCKS’S” consumers include individual investors. Consumers can buy and sell “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products. Anyone with the ability to invest in the U.S. stock market is a potential consumer of “STOCKS”-branded products. “STOCKS” also offers consumers financial publications, data, news, statistics, and analysis available on “STOCKS’S” website at qontigo.com.
  6. Individual investors can invest in “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products through online brokerage accounts.
  7. Once an investor opens an individual investment account, they can select the “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Product they would like to invest in.
  8. Individual investors are consumers of “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Products, and they are exposed when they (i) research potential investments, (ii) review information, reports, and prospectuses about the “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products, (iii) trade “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products, and/or (iv) track their investment portfolios.
  9. In addition to direct investments individual investors have investment accounts that are managed. Financial professionals may recommend “STOCKS”-branded Authorized Financial Products to their clients and purchase them on their client’s behalf. These individual investors are consumers of “STOCKS”-branded products, and they are exposed when they (i) review information, reports, and prospectuses about the “STOCKS”-branded Financial Products, (ii) receive confirmations of the purchase of such “STOCKS”-branded Financial Products, and/or (iii) track their portfolios. In fact, Applicant admits that individual investors are given prospectuses about the investments. Simply because the individual investor is not the one to complete the trade does not mean that the individual investor is not a consumer of “STOCKS”-branded products.
  • The above continues the Mosaic of Securities, Investment Advisory, and Consumer Fraud which began with “STOCKS’S” testimonial perjury and gross misrepresentations.
  • Fact: Individual investors are consumers of BlackRock-branded securities not “STOCKS”-branded securities. BlackRock is a consumer of “STOCKS”-branded benchmark administration services, which require license agreements with a minimum of a 32 page legal contract which is only available to sophisticated financial institutions. The BlackRock securities are independent of “STOCKS.”
  • The distinction, “BlackRock-branded securities” versus ““STOCKS”-branded benchmark administration services,” changes the meaning of everything in the USPTO trial while exposing the perjury and gross misrepresentations by “STOCKS.”
  • In fact, stoxdox offers consumers a broad selection of media and socio-economic vector space education, including information about BlackRock-branded securities. By destroying stoxdox, Inc.’s ability to access the consumer media marketplace over the past four years at the USPTO, “STOCKS” is restricting the flow of information about its own customers products and services to consumers which “STOCKS” is legally prohibited from providing.
  1. stoxdox contends it is a “global media platform” that offers “a broad selection of finance/investment categories,” whereas “STOCKS” is “limited in the type and scope of information that it may lawfully produce and publish as well as to whom it may distribute its data and publications” and that it cannot “engage the marketplace as a financial media brand and company.”
  2. “STOCKS” is not, as stoxdox suggests, prohibited from providing consumers financial publications, news, information, analysis, statistics, calculations, stock prices, and other market-related information and data. “STOCKS” offers consumers a variety of publications and financial information.
  3. “STOCKS” has for many years in the U.S. continuously offered under its “STOCKS” Marks various financial publications, reports, analysis, statistics, and other information on Qontigo’s Website.
  4. stoxdox identifies the following financial media publishers, among others, as its competitors: Business Insider, Bloomberg, Barron’s, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, CNBC Pro, the Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance, Morningstar, Institutional Investor, and The Financial Times.
  5. Several of stoxdox’s identified direct competitors for financial media products and services also offer the same and/or closely related products and services as “STOCKS.” For example, The Wall Street Journal and Barron’s are both owned by Dow Jones (actually News Corp owns all three). Dow Jones is involved in the business of financial indices, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Dow Jones’ indices are offered through a joint venture with S&P Global, Inc.
  6. Like Dow Jones, S&P Global, Inc. also offers numerous financial indices such as the S&P 500.
  7. Bloomberg was also identified by Applicant as a media competitor. Like Dow Jones and S&P it also offers numerous benchmarks for financial products.
  • The media is explicitly excluded from EU Benchmark Regulations.
  • As such, “STOCKS” has created a “Schrödinger’s Benchmark Paradox” at the USPTO: “STOCKS” may not offer consumer products and services nor a broad array of media services while being an EU Benchmark Administrator regulated under EU BMRs, yet it claims to do so thus blocking stoxdox from providing consumer media and socio-economic vector space education which “STOCKS” is legally prohibited from providing.
  • stoxdox testimony #79-80: The regulatory regime does not permit “STOCKS” to engage the marketplace as a financial media brand and company. Conversely, the BMRs do not apply to “the press, other media, and journalists where THEY MERELY PUBLISH OR REFER TO A BENCHMARK as part of their journalistic activities with no control over the provision of that benchmark.” Media companies are covered on page 4 number (16) and page 13 Article 2 number 2 (e) of the BMRs. stoxdox, as a media company, is not subject to the BMRs. Again, “STOCKS” is.
  • stoxdox testimonial #78. “STOCKS’S” own website Disclaimer also provides that it may not “sponsor, endorse, sell or promote products which reference “STOCKS” indices,” or “recommend that any person invest in the products which reference “STOCKS” indices or any other securities.” The disclaimer also provides that, “in particular, with the publication of “STOCKS” indices no statements are being made about (i) the issuers who are represented in an index, (ii) the market and/or economic reality an index is trying to represent or (iii) any other statement is being made about the various data contained in an index.”
  1. Without any evidence, stoxdox alleges that Deutsche Börse decided to “create and elevate the Qontigo brand above the “STOCKS” brand during the Axioma acquisition in 2019” and that “reflects the relative value of the “STOCKS” brand with Deutsche Börse.” This is false.
  • “STOCKS” was literally made a subsidiary of Qontigo, and its “STOCKS” website became a subset tab of Qontigo.com.
  1. “STOCKS” has successfully enforced its right in its “STOCKS” Marks in the United States for its products and services, including sending cease and desist letters to third parties using and/or attempting to register “STOCKS” or confusingly similar marks IN CONNECTION WITH FINANCIAL-RELATED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
  2. “STOCKS” successfully enforced its rights against a third-party using the “STOCKS” mark. “STOCKS” declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and 28 U.S.C. §1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.
  • “STOCKS” claims a monopoly on all different spelling variants of a generic word used trillions of times daily: “STOCKS.”
  • “STOCKS” testifies to systemic illegal consumer financial market activity in violation of EU BMRs and U.S. securities laws.
  • stoxdox can confirm that it too received a hostage taking letter from “STOCKS” on August 25, 2021 demanding that stoxdox, Inc. cease operations and that its BRAND IP be transferred to “STOCKS.”

stoxdox USPTO Testimonial Evidence

stoxdox, Inc. asks that the entirety of its USPTO record be fully considered in relation to “STOCKS’S” testimonial evidence and rebuttals. Respectfully, stoxdox, Inc. asks that the USPTO decision in Opposition No. 91272514 Applicant v. STOXX LTD, Opposer, Mark: STOXDOX, Serial No. 90359786, Filed: December 4, 2020 be overturned.

The following is a chronological listing of the relevant USPTO records that stoxdox asks to be considered in their entirety as evidence in support of this Appeal. Each USPTO filing is a matter of public record on the USPTO’s website except for the Grievances and Crime reports submitted to the USPTO Ethics Department and to the USPTO ESTTA between August and September 2023:

  • September 6, 2024: 804 REQUEST FOR REHEARING, RECONSIDERATION, OR MODIFICATION OF FINAL DECISION
  • February 15, 2024: APPLICANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
  • October 13, 2023: stoxdox Judicial Notice
  • October 2, 2023: stoxdox Motion For Judgment For Plaintiff’s Failure to Prove Case
  • October 2, 2023: stoxdox Judicial Notice
  • September 29, 2023: stoxdox Judicial Notice
  • September 26, 2023: stoxdox Judicial Notice
  • September 18, 2023: stoxdox – USPTO Grievance – Crime Reports Filed
  • September 16, 2023: stoxdox – USPTO ESTTA – Crime Report
  • August 29, 2023: stoxdox – USPTO Grievance – Emails Provided
  • August 20, 2023: stoxdox – USPTO Grievance
  • June 14, 2023: TESTIMONIAL DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. KAPP, CFA

Submit a Comment