Opinion ID: 2460171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The right to use one's own name

Text: Older cases suggested that a junior user, or second comer, should never be enjoined from using his or her own name in connection with a business, even if a senior user of the same name could be harmed. See, e.g., Societe Vinicole de Champagne v. Mumm, 143 F.2d 240, 240 (2d Cir.1944). As early as 1949, however, Judge John Miller in King Pharr Canning Operations, Inc. v. Pharr Canning Co., 85 F.Supp. 150, 153-54 (W.D.Ark.1949), rejected the sacred right theory in a case involving the federal trademark law. Recent cases reject the idea that a junior user has an absolute or sacred right to use his or her own name in business if a first comer has been using that name and has established a secondary meaning. See generally Annotation, Use of Family Name by Corporation as Unfair Competition, 72 A.L.R.3d 8 (1976). See also McCARTHY, supra, at § 13.03[3], at p. 13-13. Because it may become a trade name subject to the rule of priority in order to prevent deception of the public, one has no absolute right to use one's own name, even honestly, as the name of a business. John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir.1966). See McCARTHY, supra, at § 13.03[6], at pp. 13-25 to 13-28 (discussing cases imposing absolute prohibition against use of personal name as business mark). No doubt one may continue to use one's own name personally even after another has added a secondary meaning to it. The question, however, is whether one may use one's own name in a business if there is a likelihood of dilution of the trade name used by the party having established a secondary meaning or injury to the business reputation of the first user. In Williams v. Spelic, supra , the office-supply portion of a business known as Vowels Printing and Supply was sold to Mr. and Mrs. Spelic by Mr. and Mrs. Williams. The Vowels name had been used by Mrs. Williams's father in connection with the business for many years and Vowels apparently was Mrs. Williams's name prior to her marriage. The part of the business sold was the office-supply portion. The Williamses retained the printing portion that operated across the street from the office-supply store. The Chancellor found that the sales agreement had impliedly sold the Vowels name to the Spelics. The Williamses began using the Vowels name with their printing business. One of the Williamses' arguments on appeal of an injunction against their use of the Vowels name was that a family name may be used in the absence of fraud or deceit unless the exclusive right to the family name is contracted away. 311 Ark. at 282, 844 S.W.2d at 308. We held that the argument ignored the statutory grounds for injunction, noting that a showing of a likelihood of injury to the trade name was sufficient for the issuance of the injunction. An inescapable conclusion to be drawn from our decision in the Williams case is that we reject the sacred right argument because, [w]hen a surname is used as a trade name, it risks becoming a symbol of the business and losing its individual identity. Id. at 284, 844 S.W.2d at 309.