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

[Sam Castree]

I'm old enough to remember the days of "Bennifer" and "Brangelina."  No
reason they couldn't have opened a restaurant at some point.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

*Sam Castree Law, LLC*
*3421 W. Elm St.*
*McHenry, IL 60050*
*(815) 344-6300*

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:07 PM Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> 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/daaf0010/attachment.html>