Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ROYAL et al. v. ROYAL POULTRY CO., INC., et al.

DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice.

At the interlocutory hearing on an application for injunction to prevent alleged violations of Code § 37-712, the evidence was in conflict as to the intention to deceive and mislead the public, and this court will not reverse the judgment denying the interlocutory injunction. Code § 55-108. This ruling accords with Saunders System Atlanta Co. v. Drive It Yourself Co. of Ga., 158 Ga. 1 ( 123 S.E. 132); Womble v. Parker, 208 Ga. 378 ( 67 S.E.2d 133). An admission by one of the defendants that he knew about the "Royal Fish and Poultry Company" before he helped organize Royal Poultry Company, Inc., does not demand a finding that the latter trade name was appropriated for the purpose of misleading the public into believing it was that of the petitioners.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

SUBMITTED JANUARY 14, 1958 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1958.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROYAL v. ROYAL POULTRY CO., INC
(Feb 7, 1958)