Legal Opinion

Berry v. Glidden Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided July 21, 1950PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BONDY, District Judge.

This is an action permanently to enjoin defendant from using or disclosing a secret formula which plaintiff alleges he originated and revealed to defendant in confidence. Plaintiff also seeks an accounting for any profits made by defendant as a result of its commercial exploitation of said formula. The action was removed to this court from the State court by reason of the diversity of citizenship of the parties.

Plaintiff, a wO’odfinisher for forty years, began to' - experiment' in 1937 in search of a practicable composition that would stain and fill -wood in one…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. AO Smith Corporation v. Petroleum Iron Works Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1934
  2. Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
  3. Sandlin v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
  4. Shellmar Products Co. v. Allen-Qualley Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1929
  5. AO Smith Corporation v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. of OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jerome H. Lemelson v. Kellogg Company, Kellogg Sales Company and the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
  2. Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1967
  3. Heyman v. Ar. Winarick, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API