Official almanach of the rulings of the Supreme Court

2002/2.

Civil College

Civil Branch

740 Family names may not be deemed exclusive, they can be used freely by anyone as a name for a product, in the course of business activities. Protection of personal rights may only be asserted if the use can be connected to a specific purpose[Sections 75. and 76. of the Civil Code].

The binding verdict rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit, in which he asked that a breach of his personal rights, including a breach of his right to personal dignity be established, because the defendant named the toilet paper and paper tissues he makes Nárcisz, which corresponds to the family name of the plaintiff, and distributes these under said name. According to the essential contents of the binding verdict, the defendant's activity did not breach the plaintiff's personal rights determined in paragraph (1) of section 75 and in section 77 of the Civil Code. At the same time the verdict noted that if plaintiff were to suffer humiliating, injurious attacks with reference to his name, he may sue for the person committing said act.

In his request of review of the binding verdict, the plaintiff asked that said verdict was abolished, and that a verdict in keeping with his lawsuit be delivered.

According to the plaintiff the binding verdict is in conflict with sections 75 and 76 of the Civil Code because – with regard to the rulings of the Constitutional Court – did not take into account the fact that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's family name, which determines his personal integrity, in itself breached the plaintiff's right to human dignity. This is why it has no significance that the plaintiff failed to prove any other behaviour injuring his human honour or dignity.

The defendant did not submit a counter-request of review.

The Supreme Court did not find the binding verdict to be in conflict with the law.

As it was pointed out, correctly, by the binding verdict, personal rights are protected by paragraph (1) of section 75 of the Civil Code. These rights are to be honoured by everyone. Under section 76 of the Civil Code a breach of human dignity and honour is – amongs others – a breach of personal rights. A breach of right to one's name is when someone uses another person's name illegally, or illegally uses a name similar to someone else's name [Section 77. paragraph (2) of the Civil Code].

Under the above a person may assert their personal rights, if they were attacked directly and specifically, in other words if the action in question can be directly connected to the person demanding the protection of their rights. The family name Nárcisz (similarly to other family names) cannot be deemed exclusive, it may be used by anyone without breaching the regulations stipulated in paragraph (2) of section 77 of the Civil Code. The use of this name in the course of economic activities could only justify legal protection (under section 76 of the Civil Code) if this use could be brought into direct, hurtful connection with a specific person in an identifiable way. Otherwise, if no such connection exists, the use of the name as brand name, and the person bearing the given family name are not in a legal relationship, which would warrant protection of personal rights.

Thus it has no case-deciding significance if the given product is possibly suitable to create negative associations.

In this legal case there is no direct relationship between the name of the defendant's products and the person of the plaintiff, the plaintiff never claimed that there was. Thus the use of this name in the course of economic activities cannot be brought into any connection with the person of the plaintiff, and especially not with his honour or human dignity.Thus there is no direct legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant arising from the defendant's action in question, thus for lack of a legal relationship the plaintiff did not have the right to demand that the breach of his personal rights be established because of the use of the name in itself.

As a result of all this, the binding verdict rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit, having considered its merits, and without a breach of the law, therefore the Supreme Court maintained said verdict under paragraph (1) of section 275 of the Pp. (Legf.Bír.Pfv.IV.20.118/2001. sz.)