Foam Rubber Products, Inc. v. Jimenez

Texas Supreme Court

Foam Rubber Products, Inc. v. Jimenez

457 S.W.2d 276, 13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 362, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 306

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1970

DocketNo. B-2113

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 457 S.W.2d 276 (Foam Rubber Products, Inc. v. Jimenez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foam Rubber Products, Inc. v. Jimenez, 457 S.W.2d 276, 13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 362, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 306 (Tex. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Foam Rubber Products, Inc. sought a temporary injunction to enjoin defendants from operating a business under the name “Foam Rubber Company.” The trial court denied the injunction, and the court of civil [277]*277appeals affirmed. 451 S.W.2d 801. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. Our refusal of the writ of error in this case should not be understood as an approval of the statement of the court of civil appeals that plaintiff must prove that defendants acted fraudulently in their use of the name “Foam Rubber Company,” even if plaintiff proves that the descriptive words in its own trade name have acquired a secondary meaning. See Harrelson v. Wright, 339 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Civ.App.1960, writ ref.); 3 Callman Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, § 77.1 (3rd ed. 1969).

We refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

PER CURIAM.

Foam Rubber Products, Inc. sought a temporary injunction to enjoin defendants from operating a business under the name “Foam Rubber Company.” The trial court denied the injunction, and the court of civil [277]*277appeals affirmed. 451 S.W.2d 801. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. Our refusal of the writ of error in this case should not be understood as an approval of the statement of the court of civil appeals that plaintiff must prove that defendants acted fraudulently in their use of the name “Foam Rubber Company,” even if plaintiff proves that the descriptive words in its own trade name have acquired a secondary meaning. See Harrelson v. Wright, 339 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Civ.App.1960, writ ref.); 3 Callman Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, § 77.1 (3rd ed. 1969).

We refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 S.W.2d 276, 13 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 362, 1970 Tex. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foam-rubber-products-inc-v-jimenez-tex-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack