Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Beech-Nut Packing Company v. P Lorillard Company…

The Lorillard Company is at least as well known to those who do not despise tobacco as the Beech-Nut Company is to its refined customers and the time and the need for that additional precaution has gone by. If the plaintiff was misled in its reason for thinking that the defendant's right had been kept alive it was right in its belief, and further, the belief had no bearing on the question whether the mark was presented in an unjustifiable form.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Beech-Nut Packing Company v. P Lorillard Company…

It may be true that in a case like the plaintiff's its rights would not be sufficiently protected by an injunction against using the marks upon goods of the same class as those to which the plaintiff now applies it and to which its registration is confined. Upon that we express no opinion. For when it is conceded that whatever its effect the defendant has a right to use 'Beechnut' on tobacco unless the right has been abandoned, that possibility does not matter.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature