Court Opinion

ID: 9762907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:33:43.422855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.410820
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with Justice Bleil’s opinion in most respects, but I believe the trial court’s injunction here should be modified somewhat.
The contract of sale between the parties conveyed to Steve Thompson “[t]he exclusive right to use the name Thompson Air Conditioning and Heating.” The injunction granted by the trial court prohibits Richard Thompson from using Thompson Air Conditioning and Heating in any combination, as well as “any similar name using THOMPSON AIR CONDITIONING, or any other combination of words containing THOMPSON with AIR CONDITIONING....”
The injunction is overly broad. The contract does not convey the exclusive right to use similar names. It conveys specifically the exclusive right to the name Thompson Air Conditioning and Heating. It is improper to expand the contract language to cover names it does not include. The contract does not preclude Richard Thompson from using similar names, even if they are deceptively similar, and the common law does not impose such a limit on the use of one’s own surname together with an occupationally descriptive term.
I would modify the injunction to prohibit only the use of the name “Thompson Air Conditioning and Heating” and eliminate the additional provisions against similar names.