Anastasi Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi Bros. Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anastasi Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi Bros. Corp.

541 So. 2d 175, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1840, 1989 WL 33970

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 So. 2d 175 (Anastasi Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi Bros. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anastasi Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi Bros. Corp., 541 So. 2d 175, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1840, 1989 WL 33970 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order enjoining the defendants from using the surname “Anastasi” in their firm name, and requiring them to change the firm name within thirty days. We shall treat several somewhat overlapping points on appeal as one.

We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering appellants to forgo entirely use of the surname of two of the individual appellants in the corporate name. See McGhan v. McGhan, 115 Fla. 414, 155 So. 653 (1934); Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, 111 Fla. 741, 149 So. 646 (1933). We think, nevertheless, that the court could reasonably have found that restrictions must be imposed that would avert confusion between the plaintiff and defendant corporations in the minds of those with whom the parties may deal.

Although we reverse, we remand, consistent with McGhan, and direct the trial court to reform the order so as to permit appellant corporation the use of the family name “Anastasi,” with such reasonable restrictions and requirements as the court deems necessary to avert confusion in the public mind between the litigating corporations.

We hold that in the instant circumstances lack of a bond constitutes a moot issue.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order enjoining the defendants from using the surname “Anastasi” in their firm name, and requiring them to change the firm name within thirty days. We shall treat several somewhat overlapping points on appeal as one.

We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering appellants to forgo entirely use of the surname of two of the individual appellants in the corporate name. See McGhan v. McGhan, 115 Fla. 414, 155 So. 653 (1934); Gottdiener v. Joe’s Restaurant, 111 Fla. 741, 149 So. 646 (1933). We think, nevertheless, that the court could reasonably have found that restrictions must be imposed that would avert confusion between the plaintiff and defendant corporations in the minds of those with whom the parties may deal.

Although we reverse, we remand, consistent with McGhan, and direct the trial court to reform the order so as to permit appellant corporation the use of the family name “Anastasi,” with such reasonable restrictions and requirements as the court deems necessary to avert confusion in the public mind between the litigating corporations.

We hold that in the instant circumstances lack of a bond constitutes a moot issue.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 So. 2d 175, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 917, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1840, 1989 WL 33970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anastasi-masonry-corp-v-anastasi-bros-corp-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack