Royal International Optical Co. v. Texas State Optical Co.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

This is the second appeal of the defendants. The first appeal arose from a judgment that restrained defendants from using the trade name “Texas State Optical”.or any other name deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trade name “Texas Optical.” This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Royal Intern’l Optical Co. v. Texas State Optical Co., 90 N.M. 21, 559 P.2d 398 (1976). The second appeal arises out of a judgment that awarded plaintiff damages, and, by way of contempt proceedings, an attorney fee for defendants’ use of the trade name “Texas State Opticians.”

Because…