Fraser v. Singer

Supreme Court of Georgia

Fraser v. Singer

83 S.E.2d 599, 211 Ga. 26

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 13, 1954

Docket18664

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 S.E.2d 599 (Fraser v. Singer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fraser v. Singer, 83 S.E.2d 599, 211 Ga. 26 (Ga. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. The adjective “casual,” a descriptive word, is not such a word that may be exclusively appropriated as a trade name by a trader. 52 Am. Jur. 540-543, §§ 54-57.

2. While the words “casual corner” may through long use in connection with the petitioner’s business come to be understood by the public as designating the business of the petitioner, nevertheless the trade name “Singer’s Casual Shop” is not so similar as to be such a colorable imitation of “Casual Corner” as would be confusing or misleading to the public, in the exercise of ordinary care, such as would cause reasonable and cautious persons to believe it was in any way connected with the petitioner’s business and create unfair competition thereby. Hence, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers to the petition as amended and in dismissing the same. See Industrial Investment Co. v. Mitchell, 164 Ga. 437 (138 S. E. 908); First Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. First Finance & Thrift corp., 207 Ga. 695 (64 S. E. 2d 58).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. The adjective “casual,” a descriptive word, is not such a word that may be exclusively appropriated as a trade name by a trader. 52 Am. Jur. 540-543, §§ 54-57.

2. While the words “casual corner” may through long use in connection with the petitioner’s business come to be understood by the public as designating the business of the petitioner, nevertheless the trade name “Singer’s Casual Shop” is not so similar as to be such a colorable imitation of “Casual Corner” as would be confusing or misleading to the public, in the exercise of ordinary care, such as would cause reasonable and cautious persons to believe it was in any way connected with the petitioner’s business and create unfair competition thereby. Hence, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers to the petition as amended and in dismissing the same. See Industrial Investment Co. v. Mitchell, 164 Ga. 437 (138 S. E. 908); First Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. v. First Finance & Thrift corp., 207 Ga. 695 (64 S. E. 2d 58).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.E.2d 599, 211 Ga. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraser-v-singer-ga-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack