Case: 19-2414 Document: 108 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2021

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 SOLAR SOMOHANO, Miami, FL, pro se.

JOHN C. RAWLS, Baker Williams Matthiesen LLP, Hou- ston, TX, for appellee. Also represented by SARAH ANNE Case: 19-2414 Document: 108 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2021

2 SOLAR SOMOHANO v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

SILBERT.

JENNIFER UTRECHT, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for intervenor. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, MELISSA N. PATTERSON; THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE, SARAH E. CRAVEN, CHRISTINA J. HIEBER, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA 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: 3 Filed: 09/16/2021

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.