Home/D. New Jersey/Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.

Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.

299 F. 834, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1574
District Court, D. New Jersey·Decided May 7, 1924·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

LYNCH, District Judge.

The plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in the manufacturing and selling of food products, complains that the defendant, a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacturing and selling of tobacco, has damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and good will by willfully and fraudulently adopting the plaintiff’s trade-mark “Beech-Nut” as a label for tobacco products, for and on account of which the plaintiff prays an accounting for past damages and an injunction enjoining the defendant from further use thereof. The defendant, admitting the use complained of on certain brands of chewing tobacco and cigarettes, asserts a legal right thereto and prays a dismissal of plaintiff’s bill. The word “Beechnut,” or “Beech-Nut,” was years ago adopted as a label by the predecessors in business of both parties to this action. A brief- history thereof is advisable.

About 1897 the Harry Weissinger Tobacco Company, a Kentucky concern, adopted it for a combination smoking and chewing tobacco, which was put up and sold in small packages. The tobacco was described as being of “superior quality Havana cuttings,” and was what was and is known as a scrap tobacco. Following is a copy of the label [original being manilla, printed in red] adopted and used by Weissinger (Exhibit No. 17):

[836]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co., 299 F. 834, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1574 (D.N.J. 1924).

299 F. 834 (Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V.
188 F. Supp. 3d 22 (District of Columbia, 2016)
Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
135 S. Ct. 907 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Original Rex, L.L.C. v. Beautiful Brands International, LLC
792 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (N.D. Oklahoma, 2011)
Midlothian Laboratories, LLC v. PAMLAB, LLC
509 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (M.D. Alabama, 2007)
Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Swanson
235 F.3d 165 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Rose Art Industries, Inc. v. Raymond Geddes & Co.
31 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. New Jersey, 1998)
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc.
683 F. Supp. 899 (E.D. New York, 1988)
Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Kasser Distillers Products Corp.
350 F. Supp. 1341 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Thomas
5 V.I. 276 (Municipal Court of The Virgin Islands, 1966)
Hemmeter Cigar Co. v. Congress Cigar Co.
118 F.2d 64 (Sixth Circuit, 1941)
Fruit Industries v. Bisceglia Bros. Corporation
101 F.2d 752 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Churchill Downs Distilling Co. v. Churchill Downs, Inc.
90 S.W.2d 1041 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co.
6 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. New York, 1934)
Harlan-Wallis Coal Corp. v. Transcontinental Oil Co.
64 F.2d 122 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
W. T. Wagner's Sons Co. v. Orange Snap Co.
18 F.2d 554 (Fifth Circuit, 1927)
Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. v. O'Callaghan & Fedden, Inc.
18 F.2d 831 (D.C. Circuit, 1927)
Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co.
273 U.S. 629 (Supreme Court, 1927)
Dodge Bros. v. East
8 F.2d 872 (E.D. New York, 1925)