Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.

871 F.2d 590 (1989)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
871 F.2d 590 (1989)

Facts

In January 1980, Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation (BPB) (plaintiff) began using the mark Appalachian Log Structures (BPB’s mark) for log residences. BPB protected the mark with a federal trademark registration, which issued in August 1983 from an application that BPB had filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in December 1981. To obtain that registration, however, BPB needed to submit proof of secondary meaning to the PTO, so BPB submitted evidence that it had spent $100,000 on advertising and had earned approximately $2 million in gross sales of log residences under its mark. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc. (ALH) (defendant) began using the mark Appalachian Log Homes (ALH’s mark) in August 1981 for handcrafted log homes. BPB brought a trademark-infringement action against ALH in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. BPB sought an injunction against ALH barring ALH from using ALH’s mark. ALH raised a defense that BPB’s mark was invalid for being primarily geographically descriptive while lacking secondary meaning. The district court received testimony from a geography professor that the term Appalachian refers to a geographic area in the United States and that this term had been in the public domain since 1902. Additionally, a Tennessee attorney testified that, based on his research, the term Appalachian had been used in the names of 132 businesses located in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The district court also viewed the short duration of BPB’s use of its mark at the time it submitted its evidence to the PTO as highly relevant on the question of whether BPB had sustained its burden to prove secondary meaning. Considering this and other evidence, the district court issued an order denying BPB the sought injunctive relief. BPB appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Meredith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership