Royal v. Royal Poultry Co.
This text of 102 S.E.2d 44 (Royal v. Royal Poultry Co.) 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.
Opinion
At the interlocutory hearing on an application for injunction to prevent alleged violations of Code § 37-712, the evidence was in conflict as to the intention to deceive and mislead the public, and this court will not reverse the judgment denying the interlocutory injunction. Code § 55-108. This ruling accords with Saunders System Atlanta Co. v. Drive It Yourself Co. of Ga., 158 Ga. 1 (123 S. E. 132); Womble v. Parker, 208 Ga. 378 (67 S. E. 2d 133). An admission by one of the defendants that he knew about the “Royal Fish and Poultry Company” before he helped organize Royal Poultry Company, Inc., does not demand a finding that the latter trade name was appropriated for the purpose of misleading the public into believing it was that of the petitioners.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
102 S.E.2d 44, 213 Ga. 813, 1958 Ga. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-v-royal-poultry-co-ga-1958.