Court Opinion

ID: 9674592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:31:24.032437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:28.371126
License: Public Domain

MASSEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion will require the ap-pellee to either change its name or hire an engineer.
While I concur with the majority that enjoinder of the appellee in respect to its present name would be proper I cannot agree that the language of the opinion go so far as to indicate that the court believes that there should be prohibition (as the Act provides) of any use of the term “engineering” in the name of any company or business under any circumstances. I fear the holding of the majority is subject to that construction.
The spirit and intent of the rule prescribed by Section 18 of the Texas Engineering Practice Act is to protect the public by eliminating the possibility that the corporate name mislead by indication that engineering services are provided. The letter of the rule would inhibit a business establishment which provides equipment to *610engineers themselves from using a name such as “Acme Engineering Equipment” or “Omega Engineering Supplies”.
Where the reason for the rule would not exist I would hold that the rule itself is inoperative and improper to be applied, and to that end I would construe the statute’s force and effect.