Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCP00003, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCP00003    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCP00003 In the Matter of: MUSLIMAH SHAHEED

Tuesday, March 23, 2023, 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

              The Court has considered the Petition filed on January 6, 2023 by Muslimah Shaheed to change name to “Superwoman” in order to create Petitioner’s own identity. The Court has discretion to deny the petition where “there are substantial and principled reasons for denying [it].  … (In re Ross (1937) 8 Cal.2d 608, 610, 67 P.2d 94 [need some substantial reason for denial]; Lee v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 515, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 763 [court may properly deny petition if name adopted to defraud, intentionally confuse, or intrude into someone's privacy or violate recognized public policy]; In re Ritchie (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1072, 206 Cal.Rptr. 239 [denial proper where proposed surname (III) was confusing and not a legitimate name]; In re Ravitch (Pa.2000) 754 A.2d 1287, 1288–1289 [petition properly denied where name requested (initial R.) was bizarre and would result in suspicion and distrust in business and social settings].” In re Arnett (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 654, 661.

              At common law, a person's name consists of a given name and a surname or family name. (In re Ritchie (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1073 [“The name of a person is the distinctive characterization in words by which he is known and distinguished from others.]” The word “Superwoman” is a registered trademark of DC Comics Warner Communications, therefore, while there may be other legal implications associated with Petitioner’s use of a trademark as a legal name, there is a potential for confusion in the use of the trademark. The trademark also does not conform with the common law description of a “traditional name.”(United States Patent and Trademark Office); (In re Forchion (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1312 ["We should not create a situation where an individual's new name may—now or eventually—be so similar to a domain name or a trademark as to cause confusion. It follows that individuals and domains, respectively, should not share the same names.”].  Finally, use of the trademark would not accomplish Petitioner’s objective of creating a distinctive identity.

              The Court has reviewed the Criminal History Assessment filed on February 24, 2023, which also supports denial of the Petition. The assessment reflects that Petitioner is currently on active probation for five years for violation of Welfare & Institutions Code section 10980 (obtaining aid with fraudulent intent). The probation period does not expire until November 16, 2026. This is a separate basis for denying the petition.

              A statutory name change is a procedure that provides a public record of the change. The statute does not “does not supplant the common law rule that a person may, without formal action, adopt any name he or she chooses,” so long as the name is not adopted to defraud or intentionally confuse. (Weathers v. Superior Court (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 286, 288). Therefore, while Petitioner may adopt any name as permitted at common law, Petitioner “may not force its acceptance” through the statutory name change procedure." (In re Ritchie (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1073).

              For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED.