Add to Library

Search

Friedman v. Rogers

Citation. 440 U.S. 1, 99 S. Ct. 887, 59 L. Ed. 2d 100, 1979 U.S.

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation440 U.S. 1, 99 S. Ct. 887, 59 L. Ed. 2d 100, 1979 U.S.

440 U.S. 1, 99 S. Ct. 887, 59 L. Ed. 2d 100, 1979 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. Texas state law prohibits the use of a trade name by optometrists.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Trade names are not a form of commercial speech, as they have no intrinsic meaning.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The Court unanimously held that this section of the act was constitutional because it was reasonably related to the State's legitimate purpose of securing a Board that will administer the Act faithfully.

View Full Point of Law

point of law

Facts. Texas state law prohibits the use of a trade name by optometrists.

Issue. Is this restriction on the use of trade names constitutional?

Held. Yes. Texas has demonstrable evidence of public misunderstanding associated with the use of trade names.

Discussion. The danger of confusing the public is very real. The names are sold as part of the business of optometry. Therefore, a name that used to be associated with a certain level of quality due to the staff and practitioner may not be the same under the current management and is, therefore, misleading and deceptive.

Create New Group