The right to use one’s own name in connection with a business, product or service had long been considered “sacred” and could not be interfered with absent proof that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.1 As recognized more than 60 years ago by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Societe Vinicole de Champagne v. Mumm, 143 F.2d 240, 241, 62 USPQ 2 (2d Cir. 1944), “to prohibit an individual from using his true family surname is to take away his identity: without it he cannot make known who he is to those who may wish to deal with him; and that is so grievous an injury that courts will avoid imposing it, if they can.”
The commercial world has become increasingly congested since the 1944 decision in Societe Vinicole and courts are now treating personal names in much the same manner as other trademarks, i.e., the overriding issue is whether the use of a personal name is likely to cause confusion with another’s name or trademark.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
