Word: beech
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1920-1929
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Beech-Nut Packing Co.: $1,510,484 as against...
...looking a bit like the late Viscount Bryce, pounded a desk and argued a water power case with vigorous conviction. He was Moses Hooper-for 70 years an able lawyer of Oshkosh, Wis. He had ridden in his automobile to Washington and intends to ride back to Oshkosh soon. Beech-Nut v. Beechnut. P. Lorillard Co. (Beechnut chewing tobacco) is not infringing the trademark of the Beech-Nut Packing Co. (BeechNut chewing ' gum, candies, ham, peanut butter, etc.) - decided the U. S. Supreme Court last week. Said Mr. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Lorillard Co. is at least...
...Barbee '28, who easily weathered nine innings on the mound against Boston University, and R. R. Ketchum '29, one of the leading hurlers of last year's Freshman team, are slated to pitch for Harvard. The Crimson batters will face Erickson, Beech or Johnson. SPRINGFIELD HARVARD Jenkins l.f. c.f. Burns Wright 3b. r.f. Jones Duncan c.f. 3b. Zarakov Mahinkin 1b. l.f. Lord Misar r.f. 1b. Tobin James 2b. 2b. Ullman Craig s.s. c. Chauncey Putnam or Steeves c. s.s. Chase, Donaghy Erickson, Beech, or Johnson p p Barbee, Ketchum
Costly lawyers argued before the Supreme Court of the U. S. last week over homonymic trademarks. The Beech-Nut Packing Co. (BeechNut provisions, chewing-gum, candies) wanted P. Lorillard Co. (tobaccos) to cease labeling one of its cigaret and tobacco brands Beechnut. Lorillard Co. asserted that Beechnut was the name of a chewing tobacco made by a now dissolved Kentucky firm they once owned; that Beech-Nut Packing was not making tobacco products and was not injured by the similarity of trademarks. Beech-Nut complained that some day they might want to manufacture cigarets and other tobacco products; then there...
...Lorillard Co. hired, for this trademark case, John W. Davis. Beech-Nut Packing secured Charles E. Hughes (1910-16 U. S. Supreme Court Justice). Less fortunate lawyers predicted the usual fat fees, said Lawler Davis had commanded in one case $5,000 a day, that Lawyer Hughes had received $100,000 for a single case. Both lawyers once ran for President and were defeated: Mr. Hughes in 1916, as the Republican candidate, Mr. Davis in 1924 on the Democratic ticket. Both illustrate the earnings-power of men in public life...