Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

William S. Purdy v. Burlington Northern

Date: 10-24-2001

Case Number: 00-1918, 00-2679, 00-2335

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: William S. Purdy, Pro Se

Defendant's Attorney: Edward Michael Glennon, Christopher H. Yetka and Christopher L. Lynch, Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Randy Gene Gullickson of Anthony Ostlund & Baer, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota

Description:
William S. Purdy worked as a locomotive engineer for Burlington Northern
Railroad. In 1989, Purdy was involved in a train accident that severed the legs of a
coworker. The next year, the Railway terminated Purdy’s employment because of
insubordination. Purdy has been disabled since then because of post-traumatic stress
disorder. In 1993, Purdy started using the service mark, “BNSF,” an abbreviation for
“Bringing Now Safety First,” to promote railroad safety, and established Internet
websites using the mark. He formed Minnesota and North Dakota corporations
named BNSF Corp. In 1994, Burlington Northern Railroad merged with Sante Fe
Railway and created a Delaware corporation, BNSF Corp. The combined railways
began using the abbreviation “BNSF” across the country. After the Interstate Commerce Commission approved the merger in 1995, the corporation changed its
name to Burlington Northern Sante Fe Corporation and began using the logo “BNSF”
on corporate communications, advertising, promotions, and the sides of its
locomotives. In 1996, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Purdy use of
the service mark “BNSF.” In 1998, a federal court in Texas ordered the service mark
void ab initio and ordered the patent office to cancel the registration. The Fifth
Circuit affirmed. Purdy then brought this action in federal court to determine his
rights to the service mark “BNSF” under common law.
Outcome:
Having
carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly decided the case. Because an extended opinion would
serve no useful purpose, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s orders. See 8 th
Cir. R. 47B.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of William S. Purdy v. Burlington Northern?

The outcome was: Having carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly decided the case. Because an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s orders. See 8 th Cir. R. 47B.

Which court heard William S. Purdy v. Burlington Northern?

This case was heard in United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, MN. The presiding judge was Per Curiam.

Who were the attorneys in William S. Purdy v. Burlington Northern?

Plaintiff's attorney: William S. Purdy, Pro Se. Defendant's attorney: Edward Michael Glennon, Christopher H. Yetka and Christopher L. Lynch, Lindquist & Vennum, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Randy Gene Gullickson of Anthony Ostlund & Baer, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

When was William S. Purdy v. Burlington Northern decided?

This case was decided on October 24, 2001.