Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN
Honorablr Y. 0, Flowarr
Seorrtar~ Stat*
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
atlon?
raqurrting an opinion of two paragraphs, prr- atlon do businear subsld- 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 *2 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 ?$lgin Butter Coiupany, a oorporation, ths El&n Crramery egsinst Company, a oorporation, seeking to rratrain and enjoin thr oreamry oompany, the last oorporate entity in the field, from a8nuraoturlng, offering to #all, or selling any butter, the ma8 of. qlgin owner or Ieller, udlar as !nanuiaoturar, Craamry Company,* It8 corporate name. irony thr 36 quots opinion of the court denying the rellsf,. ae iollowr: 8(1m~ to br
Vhr gist oi the complaint thr’ uma by thr *3lgin Cr’ramary Conpany’ that or its oorporat* name in ltr huainass of man- uraoturing, dealing in, and selllug butter has a temdenoy to and doer ~oonf’uar and nfalead daal- era in the inarkrt and thrpublio et large, and leads the!& into the ralsr bailer thjt, ths’oor- porat$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- aot, or ertiticr men00 of any Intent, .to mislead in thr markrt or the publio dealer6 at large aa the Elgin to the identity of the oorporations~, 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 It would Beem that the aam rulr aa0e. 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 is, therefore the opinion of this department It lr not euoh s &.larity oonfliot between thr
that thrn name a, “The Fhenix Dair * and *i’henlx Food Sale8 Corporation,n asalone’, would warrant T hr 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 ATTORXTY 03NiQML OF TZXAS BY