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

[Esther Lee]

Thank you all for your input.

Esther

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025, 11:48 AM Edward Timberlake <ed at timberlakelaw.com>
wrote:

> With trademarks (and trademark registrations), it's always fact-specific :)
>
>
>
> 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 2:20 PM Dale Quisenberry <dale at quisenberrylaw.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good points, Ed.  I suppose it is fact specific.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> C. Dale Quisenberry
>> Quisenberry Law PLLC
>> 832.680.1000
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2025, at 1:08 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
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13910+Champion+Forest+Drive,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Houston,+Texas+77069?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13910+Champion+Forest+Drive,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Houston,+Texas+77069?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13910+Champion+Forest+Drive,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Houston,+Texas+77069?entry=gmail&source=g>Houston,
>>> Texas 77069
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13910+Champion+Forest+Drive,+Suite+203+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+Houston,+Texas+77069?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> (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/20250703/07ba81e9/attachment.html>