[E-trademarks] Living person's consent when using a part of names

[Edward Timberlake]

A mark formed from parts of the names of two different people doesn't
identify a living individual . . .  unless it does.

Wouldn't the question be whether the parts of the names identify living
individuals in the minds of consumers?

And, of course, we typically have no idea what's actually going on in the
minds of consumers.

It seems to me the question is: 1) What do we think 2) the Trademark Office
will think 3) that consumers currently think when they encounter the mark
made from parts of two names?

It's easy to say parts of names aren't names, but one could perhaps imagine
a situation (depending on the chefs, and the names, and . . . everything)
where a mark made from parts of two names might reasonably be expected to
identify two individuals in the minds of consumers.





Sincerely,

Ed Timberlake
*Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
<https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-lawyers/certification-standard-summaries/trademark-law/>*

*Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
Chapel Hill, NC

Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
ed at timberlakelaw.com
919.960.1950








On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:55 PM Orvis via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> No, because a restaurant name formed from parts of two people's names does
> not identify a living individual.
>
> Jul 3, 2025 1:37:00 PM Dale Quisenberry via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>:
>
> My initial reaction is no, but curious to know if there is any rule or
> case on this that others may know about.
>
>
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
>
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
>
> 13910 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 203
>
> Houston, Texas 77069
>
> (832) 680.5000 (office)
>
> (832) 680.1000 (mobile)
>
> (832) 680.5555 (facsimile)
>
> www.quisenberrylaw.com
>
>
>
> *This email may contain information that is confidential and subject to
> the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable
> privileges.  This email is intended to be received only by those to whom it
> is specifically addressed.  Any receipt of this email by others is not
> intended to and shall not waive any applicable privilege.  If you have
> received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
> sender by separate email.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Esther Lee via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 3 July 2025 at 12:33 pm
> *To: *e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *Esther Lee <estherdahyunlee at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[E-trademarks] Living person's consent when using a part of
> names
>
> A restaurant name was formed by taking one to two syllables from two
> chefs' names, as stated on the website. If a restaurant owner wants to
> trademark the business name, does he need to include written consent from
> the two chefs in the application?
>
>
>
>
>
> Esther
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250703/b8848093/attachment.html>