# Grayson-Robinson Stores Inc. v. Oneida Ltd.

> Supreme Court of Georgia · February 24, 1953 · 209 Ga. 613

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613470

## Case

- **Full name:** Grayson-Robinson Stores Inc. v. Oneida Ltd.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** February 24, 1953
- **Citations:** 209 Ga. 613; 75 S.E.2d 161; 1953 Ga. LEXIS 362
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Head
- **Judges:** Candler, Atkinson, Head
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613470

## Opinion text

Head, Justice,
concurring specially. Our statutes (Code, § 37-712 and Chapter 106-99) do not draw any distinction between a “trade-mark” and a “trade name.” In many of the decisions by the courts of this country in actions alleging unfair competition, little regard is given to any legal or technical distinction between a trade-mark and a trade name,, since in either instance the most common form of infringement or imitation *620 is the use by another in a manner calculated to deceive the public. Unfair competition, however, according to many authorities, may exist in various other forms. In the present case the sole unfair competition alleged is a violation of contracts based on the minimum retail resale prices established by Oneida Ltd., under provisions of the act known as the “Fair Trade Act,” Ga. L. 1937, pp. 800-804 (Code, Ann. Supp., § 106-401 et seq.). Since the petitioner did not seek relief for any alleged acts of the defendant in deceiving, misleading, and confusing the public, and capitalizing on the reputation and good will of the petitioner, I concur in the judgment of reversal.
Harris v. Duncan, 208 Ga. 561 ( 67 S. E. 2d, 692 ) (cited in division 3 of the opinion), would not be applicable in an action seeking relief against the defendant for deceiving, misleading, and confusing the public, and capitalizing on the good will and reputation of the petitioner by an unauthorized use of its trademark or trade name. In this connection, see Kay Jewelry Co. v. Kapiloff, 204 Ga. 209 ( 49 S. E. 2d, 19 ); and Gordy v. Dunwody 209 Ga. 627 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613470. Public record. Not legal advice.