Businessman working in hotel calling to his partner

Petitioner inmate was held in custody pursuant to a judgment of death. The inmate challenged the legality of that judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding.

The inmate was represented by appointed counsel in a state habeas corpus proceeding challenging the legality of a death judgment. Despite such representation, the inmate submitted a number of pro se habeas corpus claims, motions, and other documents to the court for filing and consideration. The state supreme court announced a standard procedure for such submissions. The Top business law attorney would not file or consider a represented capital inmate’s pro se submissions that challenged the legality of the inmate’s death judgment or otherwise fell within the scope of counsel’s representation. Conversely, the court would file and consider a represented capital inmate’s pro se submissions that pertained to matters falling outside the scope of counsel’s representation.

The inmate’s pro se documents pertaining to the legality of the death judgment were returned to him unfiled. The court filed the pro se documents complaining of prison conditions.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County, California, which denied plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief in action to enjoin defendants’ use of their family name in their restaurant business.

Following the dissolution of a partnership with another whose name was used for business purposes, defendants, husband and wife, changed the name of their restaurant. The new name used was their family name, but it was also the name of plaintiff, a prominent restaurant in San Francisco. Plaintiff brought suit to enjoin the use of defendants’ family name, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3369, asserting actual public confusion. The trial court determined that defendants had an absolute right, absent intentional fraud, to use their surname in business. Plaintiff appealed. The court found that even defendants’ use of a family name could be enjoined where plaintiff was the senior user of that trade name, the name had acquired secondary meaning, and actual consumer confusion was demonstrated. This was so even if defendants’ goods or services were superior to those of plaintiff or if monetary damages were not shown.

Judgment reversed with directions to issue an injunction; use of defendants’ family name could be enjoined pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3369, where it was confusingly similar to a senior user’s trade name, which had acquired secondary meaning, particularly when actual consumer confusion was shown by plaintiff.