OBEAR-NESTER GLASS CO.

v.

WALGREEN DRUG STORES, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Broad v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 642 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …rt in the New York cases for the opposite conclusion. See Hazzard v. Chase National Bank, 159 Misc. 57, 287 N.Y.S. 541 (Sup.Ct.1936), aff’d mem., 257 A.D. 950, 14 N.Y.S.2d 147 (1st Dep’t 1939), aff’d mem., 282 N.Y. 652, 26 N.E. 2d 801, cert. denied, 311 U.S. 708, 61 S.Ct. 319,85 L.Ed. 460 (1940). We hold that the Trust Company had no duty, as a matter of law, to do anything other than that which it in fact did. Thus, there is no question for a jury as to whether there has been a breach of fiduciary duty.…
• King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Indus., 321 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1963)
  …lusive use of a dual functioning trademark, which both identifies the class of product as well as its source. See, e. g., Standard Brands v. Smidler, 151 F. 2d 34 (2 Cir. 1945) (“V-8”); Walgreen v. Obear-Nester, 113 F. 2d 956 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S. 708, 61 S.Ct. 174, 85 L.Ed. 459 (1940) (“Pyrex”); Marks v. Polaroid Corp., 129 F.Supp. 243 (D.Mass. 1955), aff’d 237 F. 2d 428 (1 Cir. 1956) (“Polaroid”); Q-Tips v. Johnson & Johnson, 108 F.Supp. 845 (D.N.J. 1952), aff’d 206 F. 2d 144 (3 Cir.), cert. de…
• Philco Corp. v. F. & B. MFG. Co., 170 F.2d 958 (7th Cir. 1948)
  …d and used a trade-mark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same or a similar trade-mark by others on articles of a different description. Walgreen Drug Stores v. Obear-Nester Glass Co., 8 Cir., 113 F. 2d 956, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 708, 61 S.Ct. 174, 85 L.Ed. 459, rehearing denied 311 U.S. 730, 61 S.Ct. 391, 85 L.Ed. 475. See, also, Certain-Teed Products Corporation v. Philadelphia & Suburban Mortgage Guarantee Co., 3 Cir., 1931, 49 F. 2d 114. Thus a food products trade-mark is…