Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
None contains confirmed adverse treatment. Later courts repeatedly apply its rule that a registered trademark is presumed valid, subject to a persuasive challenge to its eligibility for protection.
28 later cases cite Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.; 28 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 28 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace