OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorablr Y. 0, Flowarr
Seorrtar~ or Stat*
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
atlon?
raqurrting an opinion of
two paragraphs, prr-
atlon subsld-
do businear in
s Corporation. * Ve al-
oing .businasa fn Texas
at Houston....
ate an dplnion from your
or- the oontllot batwean ‘The
a ‘Phenlx. Food Sales Corporation’
to warrant our rrfural to grant a par-
tar Dela’rPara oorporation.W
peotfully rrier you 80 our Opinion No. o-1711,
r 28, 1939, answering a similar pusrtion sub-
mitted by you though lntolring the namer, WTaraa Federation of
Taxpayer6,W and ‘Taxaa Taxpayera’ Aaeoolation.” The authoritier
oitrd therein ara applioable to your present raquast, and wa do
not dam it nsorseary to restate or enlarge upon thra to any
great sttrnt hsrsln.
We particularly call your attention to the oa.80 of
Xl in Butter Company VB. Sands at af. (Sup. Ct. Ill.), 60 N.2,
61g, oited on page 5 of Opinion No. O-1711, in a paregraph
Bonorsblr M, 0. Tlowrrr, Fago 2
taken fro3~ Thompeon on Corporetlonr, 3rd Sdltion, Volume I,
paga 102. In this 0888, a complalnt was filed by the ?$lgin
Butter Coiupany, a oorporation, egsinst ths El&n Crramery
Company, a oorporation, seeking to rratrain and enjoin thr
oreamry oompany, the last oorporate entity in the field,
from a8nuraoturlng, offering to #all, or selling any butter,
as !nanuiaoturar, owner or Ieller, udlar the ma8 of.qlgin
Craamry Company,* It8 corporate name. 36 quots irony thr
opinion of the court denying the rellsf,. ae iollowr:
Vhr gist oi the complaint 8(1m~ to br
that thr’ uma by thr *3lgin Cr’ramary Conpany’
or its oorporat* name in ltr huainass of man-
uraoturing, dealing in, and selllug butter has
a temdenoy to and doer ~oonf’uar and nfalead daal-
era in the inarkrt and thrpublio et large, and
leads the!& into the ralsr bailer thjt, ths’oor-
porat$ou inoorporatad as *Elgin Cratiery Coiapmy~
ia one and the aam ~8 the corporation inoorpo-
rated ae ‘Tho glgin Butter Co.3ipany.I
9w3n if the corporato name8 or the two oor-
paretiono ara amewhat eh?dlar, pet, Fn the ab-
men00 of any Intent, aot, or ertiticr .to mislead
dealer6 in thr markrt or the publio at large aa
to the identity of the oorporations~, the Elgin
Creamery Coapan haa the same right to ura Its
oorporate na.rpe I n the trauaaction of its buelnesa
that thr~ Zlgin Suttor Company her to use its
oorporeta aa0e. It would Beem that the aam rulr
should apply to oorporetions in thfe regard that
obtaina in reaprot to natural person81 and, in the
abaenoe of any eaudulent or wrongful intention or
aot, or any QOntfaOt to prohibit it, every natural.
psmon her the absolute right to hle own nana in
his own buainess,m
It is, therefore the opinion of this department
that thrn lr not euoh s &.larity or oonfliot between thr
name a, “The Fhenix Dair * and *i’henlx Food Sale8 Corporation,n
asalone’, would warrant Thr Seoretary OS Statr retualng to
Honorable M. 0. flowma, Fege 3
grant a par&t to th Iattar, a foreign corporation, ta da
burlnesr in Texas.
Youra vary tNlJ
ATTORXTY03NiQML OF TZXAS
BY