Legal Opinion
Drugs Consolidated, Inc. v. Drug Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided January 12, 1929PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The defendant makes the. contention that a corporation is not entitled to be protected in its corporate name unless the name has been actually used in business so as to have acquired such a meaning that its appropriation by another will result in a diversion of trade or credit. In support of this contention the case is cited of Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 145 N. C. 367, 59 S. E. 123. That case *241was decided on demurrer. The plaintiff in its complaint failed to show that it was in the exercise of its corporate rights or was engaged in the business for…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Eastern Construction Co. v. Eastern Engineering Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Corning Glass Works v. Corning Cut Glass Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Elgin Butter Co. v. Elgin Creamery Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Philadelphia Trust, Safe Deposit & Ins. v. Philadelphia Trust Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1903
- Diamond Drill Contracting Co. v. International Diamond Drill Contracting Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Standard Oilshares, Inc. v. Standard Oil Group, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1930
- Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- Scalise v. National Utility Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1941
- The American Plan Corporation v. State Loan & Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.