Court Opinion

ID: 9560430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:49:01.119058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.760799
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the grant of partial sum*693mary judgment in favor of Aviation Information Resources, Inc. (AIR) on Future Professionals, Inc.’s (FAPA) claim under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Act). I cannot, however, agree with the majority that, in order to reach that result, the unanimous decision in Elite Personnel v. Elite Personnel Svcs., 259 Ga. 192, 193 (1) (378 SE2d 117) (1989) must be overruled.
This Court always has been and should continue to be reluctant to overrule its prior unanimous decisions. Slowik v. Knorr, 222 Ga. 669, 671 (151 SE2d 726) (1966). This is especially true where the overruling of a previous decision is unnecessary. See, e.g., Gifford-Hill & Co. v. Harrison, 229 Ga. 260, 262 (191 SE2d 85) (1972); Drury v. State, 211 Ga. 888, 889 (89 SE2d 513) (1955). Compare Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 631-634 (216 SE2d 839) (1975), where we held that a majority of this Court has the authority to vote not to follow prior unanimous decisions. Overruling Elite Personnel is clearly unnecessary because, as the majority itself notes, the trial court did not improperly limit its application of the Act to registered marks or names, but did properly base its ruling on the finding that the phrase “future airline pilots” is purely descriptive and has no secondary meaning as a matter of law.
More importantly, however, nothing in Elite Personnel conflicts with the majority’s conclusion that registration of the relevant trade or service mark or name is not a prerequisite to seeking relief under the Act. Elite Personnel, supra at 193 (1), merely holds that one of the parties therein could not claim the protection of the Act because it “failed to register its name as required by OCGA § 10-1-490.” (Emphasis supplied.) By its terms, OCGA § 10-1-490 mandates registration of certain trade names and OCGA § 10-1-493 provides that the failure to register when required is a misdemeanor. As the majority points out in its first footnote, “the sole remedy available under the Act is ‘injunctive relief . . . under the principles of equity, ’ OCGA § 10-1-373 (a).” (Emphasis in original.) It seems clear to me that one who has committed a misdemeanor by failing to register a trade name cannot be deemed to have “clean hands” when seeking injunctive relief against another party’s use of that name. Thus, I believe that this Court was correct in its narrow holding in Elite Personnel, supra at 193 (1), that one who is required to register a trade name under OCGA § 10-1-490 and fails to do so cannot claim the protection of the Act.
Because I believe that the majority has unnecessarily and erroneously overruled Elite Personnel, but nevertheless has correctly affirmed the judgment of the trial court, I concur specially.
*694Decided May 20, 1996.
James L. Seigle, for appellant.
Greenfield, Bost & Kliros, William L. Bost, for appellees.