Proceeding no.
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`Filer's name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1214372
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/08/2022
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91270235
`Defendant
`Nice saffron, LLC
`DON THORNBURGH
`DON THORNBURGH LAW CORPORATION
`466 FOOTHILL BLVD #220
`LA CAÃ#ADA FLINTRIDGE, CA 91011
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: uspto@donthornburgh.com
`818-790-6547
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Don Thornburgh
`uspto@donthornburgh.com
`/don thornburgh/
`06/08/2022
`91270235_Applicant Response to Motion 06.08.2022.pdf(205444 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 1_Walgreens business.pdf(846445 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 2_NiceSaffron business.pdf(913406 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 3_Nice Saffron 90295152 application.pdf(1059368 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 4_Declaration of Zahra Tajook.pdf(78270 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 5_Walgreens product photos.pdf(194766 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 6_Walgreens rebrand.pdf(408544 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 7_Applicant 1st Set of Interrogatories_opt.pdf(1392228
`bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 8_Applicans 1st Set of Requests for Admis-
`sions.pdf(152488 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 9_Applicant 1st Set of Requests for Documents.pdf(139282
`bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 10_PRICE LIST.pdf(153060 bytes )
`91270235_EXHIBIT 11_Opposer Initial Disclosures.pdf(1427215 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Nice saffron
`
`November 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91270235
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Walgreen Co.
`
`
`
`
`Nice Saffron LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Mark:
`
`Serial No.: 90/295,152
`
`Filed:
`
`Published: June 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`Applicant Nice Saffron LLC, by and through counsel, submits the
`
`following response to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Numerous
`
`issues of fact exist which preclude entry of summary judgment in favor of
`
`Opposer. Among the issues of fact in dispute are the following:
`
`1. Whether Applicant’s mark “Nice saffron” (“Applicant’s Mark”)
`
`is dissimilar in sound, sight or meaning with the respect to Opposer’s
`
`
`
`

`

`“NICE!” marks (“Opposer’s Marks”) as used in connection with the goods
`
`relevant to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Opposer’s Motion”).
`
`2. Whether there is similarity between the goods recited in the
`
`registrations for Opposer’s Marks and Applicant’s goods associated with
`
`Applicant’s Mark.
`
`3. Whether Opposer claims use of any of Opposer’s Marks for use
`
`with spice blend products.
`
`4. Whether Opposer has shown any commonality between the
`
`trade channels for the goods recited in Opposer’s registrations for Opposer’s
`
`Marks, on the one hand, and the goods claimed in Applicant’s application.
`
`5. Whether Opposer has shown any commonality or significant
`
`overlap between potential customers for the goods recited in Opposer’s
`
`registrations for Opposer’s Marks, on the one hand, and potential customers
`
`for the goods described in the application for Applicant’s Mark.
`
`6. Whether the respective goods of Applicant and Opposer are
`
`sold at a similar or a different price point.
`
`7. Whether purchasers of Applicant’s goods exhibit a high degree
`
`of care in selecting and purchasing those goods.
`
`Evidence relating to each of these disputes is detailed below.
`
`Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Applicant, it is clear
`
`
`
`

`

`that significant factual disputes exist and that Opposer is not entitled to
`
`summary judgment. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny in its entirety the Opposer's Motion.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Opposer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Likelihood of
`
`Confusion Claim Is Based on Unsupported and Disputed Facts and
`
`Therefore Must Fail.
`
`In Opposer’s Motion, Opposer has alleged that there is a likelihood of
`
`confusion between its use of the word “NICE!” (with an exclamation point)
`
`in Opposer’s Marks and Applicant’s use of the word “nice” in Applicant’s
`
`Mark. The Board determines the issue of likelihood of confusion by focusing
`
`on the question of whether the purchasing public mistakenly would assume
`
`that the applicant’s goods originate from the same sources as, or are associated
`
`with, the goods in the cited registrations. Paula Payne Prods. Co. v Johnson
`
`Publ’g Co., 473 F.2d 901, 902, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (CCPA 1973). The Board
`
`makes that determination on a case-by-case basis. On-line Careline Inc. v.
`
`Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1084, 56 USPQ 2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000). As stated in Opposer’s Motion, in making that determination, the
`
`Board is aided by application of the factors set out in In re E.I. du Pont de
`
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357; 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
`
`
`
`

`

`No evidence is yet of record regarding Opposer’s use of its marks in
`
`connection with the sale of any of the goods described in Applicant’s
`
`application, and without such information, it is not possible to evaluate the
`
`possibility of a likelihood of confusion. Opposer describes its primary
`
`business as that of a large, nationwide chain of pharmacies, and the goods and
`
`services described in the registrations for Opposer’s Marks are consistent with
`
`this fact. As such, the very nature of Opposer’s business calls into question
`
`the nature and extent of Opposer's rights, and at a minimum, presents a
`
`genuine issue of material fact.
`
`Because opposer’s primary business is to sell pharmacy and healthcare
`
`related merchandise, and to sell such goods solely through its own retail
`
`locations, Opposer cannot demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the
`
`marks. Likelihood of confusion must be evaluated by balancing a number of
`
`factors, specifically including: the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of
`
`the goods and services, the channels of trade, the classes of purchasers of the
`
`goods and services, the degree of care exercised by purchasers of the goods,
`
`and the nature and extent of any actual confusion. E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
`
`Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973). No one factor is decisive, and even
`
`identical marks can be found not to be confusingly similar. See, e.g, Allstate
`
`Ins. Co. v. Allstate Inv. Corp., 210 F. Supp. 25 (W.D. La. 1962), affd, 328
`
`
`
`

`

`F.2d 608 (5th Cir. 1964) (ALLSTATE for insurance and ALLSTATE for
`
`mortgage brokerage not likely to be confused); Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc.,
`
`644 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. 1981) (BRAVO'S for crackers and BRAVOS for tortilla
`
`chips not likely to be confused); Columbia University v. Columbia/HCA
`
`Healthcare Corp., 964 F. Supp. 733, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1083 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
`
`(COLUMBIA for a university and COLUMBIA for health care services not
`
`likely to be confused). Here, the overwhelming majority of factors favor
`
`Applicant.
`
`1. The Goods Are Unrelated.
`
`Opposer’s business is that of operating the second largest pharmacy
`
`chain in the United States. Exhibit 1. Applicant’s business consists solely of
`
`selling high quality saffron and other spices. Exhibit 2. As such, there is no
`
`relationship between the goods sold by Opposer and those sold by Applicant.
`
`Any similarity or dissimilarity would have to be evaluated as the parties
`
`present evidence regarding actual and intended use of their respective marks.
`
`Applicant’s goods for which Opposer seeks summary judgment consist
`
`of spices and spice blends. Exhibit 3. In sharp contrast, Opposer’s goods do
`
`not include any spice blends, and no evidence is of record to indicate that
`
`Opposer sells any saffron products or any of the same spice products as
`
`Applicant. See Zahra Tajook Decl., attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant’s investigation of Opposer’s use of Opposer’s Marks
`
`indicates that Opposer uses such marks for numerous household products,
`
`but that the only products which might even be considered “spices” are salt,
`
`pepper and garlic powder, as shown on attached Exhibit 5.
`
`
`
`Opposer has failed to cite any registered trademarks for use with spice
`
`blends, and no evidence of record to indicate that Opposer sells any saffron
`
`products or any of the same spice products as Applicant. Despite this
`
`deficiency, Opposer has presented anecdotal evidence purporting to show
`
`that sellers of spice products sometimes sell spice blends and vice versa. See
`
`Motion, Exhibits 4-6. Such evidence itself presents disputed issues of
`
`material fact. Furthermore, such information, even if true, is not relevant to
`
`this proceeding or to Opposer’s Motion because Opposer has presented no
`
`evidence that Opposer’s Marks have ever been, or reasonably ever would be,
`
`associated with spice blends. Opposer’s use of Opposer’s Marks derives
`
`from the activities associated with a large, nationwide pharmacy chain. The
`
`suggestion that consumers would associate luxury “Nice saffron” spice
`
`products with the products of a pharmacy chain is untenable, but at the very
`
`least, presents a material issue of fact which remains disputed.
`
`
`
`

`

`2. The Channels of Trade Are Entirely Different.
`
`Applicant’s goods are sold primarily through its proprietary website
`
`and in boutique markets to customers seeking high end spice products. See
`
`Motion, Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of
`
`Interrogatories, Response No. 15. Opposer has submitted no evidence, either
`
`in discovery or in its Motion, that it provides any goods in such channels of
`
`trade. Opposer's evidence indicates that to the extent any similar goods are
`
`sold, they are sold exclusively in Opposer’s chain of pharmacies. Exhibit 6.
`
`As such, the Opposer and Applicant’s channels of trade are entirely distinct.
`
`
`
`As Opposer notes, as a matter of law, since Applicant’s application
`
`does not specify channels of commerce, the Board must assume that the
`
`goods identified in the application for which registration is opposed move in
`
`all channels of trade that would be normal for such goods, and that the goods
`
`would be purchased by all potential customers for such goods. In re
`
`Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981). At this stage in the proceeding,
`
`however, Opposer has provided absolutely no proof of any use of Opposer’s
`
`Marks in any trade channels. Additionally, as noted above, none of the
`
`registrations asserted by Opposer claims use of a mark for any spice blends.
`
`As such, an unresolved question of fact arises as to whether the goods
`
`specified in the asserted registrations move in the same channels of trade
`
`
`
`

`

`that would be normal for the parties’ respective goods. Through the conduct
`
`of discovery, the evidence will show that Applicant’s high end spices and
`
`spice blends move in channels of trade which are entirely distinct from the
`
`channels of trade of Opposer, namely a chain of pharmacies owned and
`
`operated by Opposer. As such, summary judgment in favor of Opposer
`
`would be inappropriate.
`
`3. The Purchasers of the Goods Are Different.
`
`Opposer's goods are offered exclusively in a chain of pharmacy stores
`
`operated by Opposer. Exhibit 6. Opposer does not claim to offer any spices
`
`which are not specifically associated with those retail stores. As such,
`
`customers of Opposer’s pharmacies are the only purchasers of Opposer’s
`
`goods. In contrast, Applicant’s goods are provided to consumers seeking high
`
`end spices and spice blends and are not sold (and never would be sold) at
`
`Opposer’s pharmacies. See Motion Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Responses to
`
`Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories, No. 15. As such, an unresolved
`
`question of fact arises as to whether the customers for Applicant’s goods
`
`would be the same or have any overlap with potential customers for the goods
`
`recited in Opposer’s asserted registrations for Opposer’s Marks.
`
`
`
`

`

`4. There Is No Evidence of Actual Confusion.
`
`Opposer does not assert that there exists any evidence of actual
`
`confusion. Furthermore, Applicant’s own investigation of the claims asserted
`
`by Opposer produced to date confirm that Opposer has no instances of actual
`
`confusion. See Motion, Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First
`
`Set of Interrogatories, No. 18.
`
`Applicant’s communications with its customers demonstrate not only
`
`that Applicant’s customers are able to distinguish the two sources, but that
`
`none has assumed any connection between the two. See Motion, Exhibit 3,
`
`Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories, No. 18. See
`
`Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1321, 1992
`
`TTAB LEXIS 52, at *48 (TTAB 1992) (where individuals called and asked
`
`whether MRS. FIELDS was a part of or a franchise of MARSHALL FIELD'S,
`
`this indicated that rather than being confused, those individuals recognized
`
`that these were two separate entities). The presence or absence of any
`
`evidence of actual confusion remains an unresolved material question of fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`5. There Is No Evidence of Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`To date, Opposer has not provided any probative documentary
`
`evidence of potential confusion. Until such evidence can be produced and
`
`examined, summary judgment in favor of Opposer would be inappropriate
`
`
`
`

`

`and would be prejudicial to the rights of Applicant. On May 9, 2022,
`
`Applicant served on Opposer Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories,
`
`Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Admissions, and Applicant’s First Set
`
`of Requests for Documents. Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. Applicant expects that the
`
`information and documents to be provided by Opposer in response to those
`
`requests will provide evidence of substantial differences in the goods
`
`themselves, the channels of trade, and the purchasers of the goods, and the
`
`degree of care exercised by the purchasers of the parties’ respective goods.
`
`It should be noted that Opposer filed the instant motion one day after
`
`Applicant served such discovery requests. Until Opposer provides responses
`
`to such discovery requests, the facts relevant to this proceeding remain in
`
`dispute, and summary judgment in favor of Opposer would inappropriate.
`
`See F.R.C.P. 56(d).
`
`
`
`6. Degree Of Care: Opposer’s Goods are Inexpensive, and
`
`Purchased with a Low Degree of Care, Whereas Applicant’s Goods are
`
`Much More Expensive and Purchased with a High Degree of Care.
`
`
`
`In its Motion, Opposer contends that the goods of both Applicant and
`
`Opposer are inexpensive and purchased with a law degree of care. As
`
`evidenced by Applicant’s price list, Applicant’s gourmet spice products are
`
`significantly more expensive than the goods sold by Opposer under
`
`
`
`

`

`Opposer’s mark. Evidence of the typical price of Opposer’s goods is shown
`
`on Exhibit 1 to the Motion. Evidence of the typical price of Applicant’s
`
`goods is shown on Exhibit 10. The extreme disparity in the respective price
`
`points and the degree of care of the purchasers will be proven at trial, but for
`
`purposes of the Motion, it need only be said that that this issue is yet another
`
`disputed fact.
`
`
`
`
`
`7. Applicant Has Not Had an Opportunity to Investigate.
`
`In its Initial Disclosures, Opposer identifies a number of individuals
`
`who have information regarding Opposer’s use of Opposer’s marks,
`
`including Courtney Shields, Senior Manager, Owned Brands at Walgreen
`
`Co. See Opposer’s Initial Disclosures, page 2, attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
`
`On May 9, 2022, Applicant served on Opposer Applicant’s First Set of
`
`Interrogatories, Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Admissions, and
`
`Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Documents. Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. To
`
`date, Opposer has not provided any responses to such requests. Until
`
`Applicant has an opportunity to complete such discovery to gather
`
`information from these and other parties, the facts relevant to this
`
`proceeding remain in dispute, and summary judgment in favor of Opposer
`
`would inappropriate. See F.R.C.P. 56(d).
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`If the Board is not persuaded that the Motion should be denied at this
`
`time for the reasons set forth herein, then Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Board defer resolution of the present motion until Opposer responds
`
`to Applicant’s outstanding discovery requests so that Applicant will have
`
`access to facts necessary to evaluate the issues discussed herein. See
`
`F.R.C.P. 56(d).
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Opposer's Motion for Summary Judgment is based entirely on disputed
`
`facts, including the goods themselves, the channels of trade, and the
`
`purchasers of the goods, and the degree of care exercised by the purchasers of
`
`the parties’ respective goods. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
`
`to Applicant, it is clear that significant factual disputes exist and that Opposer
`
`is not entitled to such judgment as a matter of law. Applicant therefore
`
`respectfully requests that the Board deny in its entirety the Opposer's Motion.
`
`Dated: June 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Don Thornburgh Law Corporation
`466 Foothill Boulevard #220
`La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011
`
` /s/ Don Thornburgh
`Don Thornburgh
`for Don Thornburgh Law Corporation
`
`
`Attorney for Applicant,
`Nice Saffron LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Nice saffron
`
`November 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91270235
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Walgreen Co.
`
`
`
`
`Nice Saffron LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Mark:
`
`Serial No.: 90/295,152
`
`Filed:
`
`Published: June 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S
`RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT has been served on the Opposer, at the correspondence address of record in
`the records of the USPTO, by e-mailing said copy (with consent) on June 8, 2022 to:
`Tiffany D. Gehrke (tgehrke@marshallip.com), with copies to mbolos@marshallip.com,
`and mgblitdocket@marshallip.com
`
`
` /s/ Don Thornburgh
` Don Thornburgh
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Walgreens - Wikipedia
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens
`
`Walgreens
`
`Walgreen Company, d/b/a Walgreens, is an American company that operates
`the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS Health.[3] It
`specializes in filling prescriptions, health and wellness products, health information,
`and photo services.[4] It was founded in Chicago, Illinois, in 1901, and is
`headquartered in the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois. On December 31, 2014,
`Walgreens and Switzerland-based Alliance Boots merged to form a new holding
`company, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. Walgreens became a subsidiary of the new
`company, which retained its Deerfield headquarters and trades on the Nasdaq under
`the symbol WBA (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/wba)[5] The company was found
`by a federal jury to have "substantially contributed to" the opioid crisis.
`
`Walgreen Company
`
`Contents
`History
`Company history
`21st-century
`2000s
`2010s
`2020s
`Corporate operations
`Store model
`Lawsuits and criticism against Walgreens
`Allegations of discrimination
`Drug-fraud
`Medicaid
`Use of proprietary drugs
`Distribution of oxycodone
`Pricing and advertising
`Illegal disposal
`Selling expired products and over-charging
`Medication denied because of religious beliefs
`Investor relations
`Over-billing Governments
`Unlicensed pharmacist
`Wage theft violations
`Dispensing incorrect vaccines to pre-schoolers
`Brands
`Contributions to popular culture
`See also
`References
`Citations
`General sources
`External links
`
`History
`
`1 of 11
`
`Type
`Industry
`Founded
`
`Founder
`
`Area served
`Key people
`
`Products
`
`A Walgreens store in Steamboat
`Springs, Colorado
`Trade name Walgreens
`Walgreen Drug CO
`Formerly
`(1901–31)
`Walgreen Drug Stores
`(1931–48) Walgreen's
`(1948–55)
`Subsidiary
`Retail
`1901 in Chicago,
`Illinois, U.S.
`Charles Rudolph
`Walgreen
`Headquarters 200 Wilmot Road,
`Deerfield, Illinois,
`United States
`United States
`Stefano Pessina
`(Executive Chairman)
`Rosalind Brewer (CEO)
`John T. Standley
`(President)[1]
`Drug store
`Pharmacy
`2,091,000,000 (2010)
`Walgreens Boots
`Alliance
`walgreens.com (http://
`walgreens.com)
`Footnotes / references
`[2]
`
`Net income
`Parent
`
`Website
`
`6/6/2022, 1:53 PM
`
`

`

`Walgreens - Wikipedia
`
`Company history
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens
`
`Walgreens began in 1901, with a small food front store on the corner of Bowen and
`Cottage Grove Avenues in Chicago, owned by Dixon, Illinois native Charles R.
`Walgreen.[6] By 1913, Walgreens had grown to four stores on Chicago's South Side. It
`opened its fifth in 1915 and four more in 1916. By 1919, there were 20 stores in the chain.
`As a result of alcohol prohibition, the 1920s were a successful time for Walgreens.
`Although alcohol was illegal, prescription whiskey was available and sold by
`Walgreens.[7] In 1922, the company introduced a malted milkshake, which led to its
`establishing ice cream manufacturing plants. The next year, Walgreen began opening
`stores away from residential areas. In the mid-1920s, there were 44 stores with annual
`sales of $1,200,000 combined. Walgreens had also expanded by then into Minnesota,
`Missouri, and Wisconsin. By 1930, it had 397 stores with annual sales of US$4,000,000.
`This expansion partly was attributed to selling prescribed alcohol, mainly whiskey, which Walgreen often stocked under the
`counter, as accounted in Daniel Okrent's Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition.[8] The stock market crash in October
`1929 and the subsequent Great Depression did not greatly affect the company. By 1934, Walgreens was operating in 30
`states with 601 stores. After Charles Walgreen Sr. died in 1939, his son Charles R. Walgreen Jr. took over the chain until his
`retirement. The Charles R. Walgreen (Jr.) years were relatively prosperous but lacked the massive expansion seen in the
`early part of the century. In 1946, Walgreens purchased Sanborns, one of the largest pharmacy and department store chains
`in Mexico, from Frank Sanborn (Walgreens sold Sanborns to Grupo Carso in 1982).[9] Charles "Cork" R. Walgreen III took
`over after Walgreen Jr.'s retirement in the early 1950s and modernized the company by switching to barcode scanning. The
`company also created larger-sized Walgreens Superstores and purchased the Globe Discount City chain of big-box stores
`from United Mercantile, Inc. in the 1960s The Walgreen family was not involved in senior management of the company for a
`short time following Walgreen III's retirement. In the 1980s Walgreens owned and operated a chain of casual family
`restaurants/pancake houses called Wag's. Walgreens sold most of these to Marriott Corp. in 1988,[10] and by 1991 the chain
`was out of business. In 1986, Walgreens acquired the MediMart chain from Stop & Shop.[11] In 1995, Kevin P. Walgreen was
`made a vice-president and promoted to senior vice president of store operations in 2006.[12]
`
`Early "Walgreen Drugs" sign still in
`use in San Antonio, Texas
`
`21st-century
`
`2000s
`
`On July 12, 2006, David Bernauer stepped down as CEO of Walgreens and was replaced by company president Jeff Rein,
`who was later named chief executive officer and chairman of the board. That year, Walgreens acquired the Happy Harry's
`chain in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey.[13] On October 10, 2008, Rein abruptly quit as CEO and was
`replaced by Alan G. McNally as chairman and acting CEO.[14] On January 26, 2009, Gregory Wasson was named CEO
`effective February 1, 2009.[15]
`
`2010s
`
`In 2010, Walgreens acquired New York City-area chain Duane Reade for $1.075 billion, including debt, and continued to use
`the Duane Reade name on some stores in the New York City metropolitan area.[16] In March 2011, Walgreens acquired
`Drugstore.com for $409 million.[17] On June 19, 2012: Walgreens paid $6.7 billion for a 45% interest in Alliance Boots.[18]
`That year, Walgreens acquired Mid-South drug store chain operating under the USA Drug, Super D Drug, May's Drug, Med-
`X, and Drug Warehouse banners.[19]
`
`In 2011 Walgreens announced it would end its relationship with Express Scripts,[20] a prescription benefits manager. A
`coalition of minority groups, led by Al Sharpton's National Action Network,[21] sent letters urging CEO Gregory Wasson to
`reconsider. Groups sending letters were National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference,[22] the Congress of Racial
`Equality,[23] Hispanic Leadership Fund[24] and others. In 2012, Walgreens announced that it would continue to participate
`in Express Scripts.
`
`On September 10, 2013, Walgreens announced it had acquired Kerr Drug.[25] In August 2014, Walgreens purchased the
`remaining 55% of Alliance Boots. The combined company became known as the Walgreens Boots Alliance and was
`headquartered in Chicago.[26][27] In December of that year, Walgreens purchased the Almus Pharmaceutical generic
`brand.[28] Also that year, Walgreens acquired Farmacias Benavides.[29] On July 28, 2016, Walgreens announced it would
`shut down Drugstore.com, as well as Beauty.com, in order to focus on its own Walgreens.com website.[30] On September 19,
`2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved Walgreen's fourth attempt to purchase Rite Aid, with 1,932 stores for
`$4.38 billion total.[31]
`
`2 of 11
`
`6/6/2022, 1:53 PM
`
`

`

`Walgreens - Wikipedia
`
`2020s
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens
`
`In February 2020, Walgreens announced the appointment of Richard Ashworth as president of the company, but he left
`within the year. Prior to the appointment, he served as president of operations for Walgreens.[32][33]
`
`Corporate operations
`
`Walgreens has its corporate headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois.[34][35] Walgreens
`has had a technology office located in Chicago since 2010. The location serves as
`their digital hub.[36]
`
`Logo from 2005 until 2020
`
`In November 2010 Walgreens filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Wegmans supermarket chain, claiming the
`"W" in the Wegman's logo is too similar to Walgreens'.[37] The lawsuit was settled in April 2011, with Wegmans agreeing to
`discontinue use of its "W" logo by June 2012, although the supermarket retained the right to use the "Wegmans" name in
`script.[38] According to Jo Natale, Wegmans director of media relations, "The cost of making relatively minor changes to a
`limited number of products was much less than the cost of litigating this case to the end."[39]
`
`In the summer of 2014, a corporate relocation to Switzerland was considered as part of a merger with Alliance Boots, a
`European drugstore chain.[40] This drew controversy as many consumers felt that it was an attempt at tax inversion. On
`August 5, 2014, Walgreens announced that it would not be relocating its headquarters.
`
`As of August 31, 2019, the company operated 9,277 stores in the United States.
`
`Store model
`
`A Walgreens "corner drugstore",
`located in a Marriott street-level
`retail space, on the corner of a
`heavily trafficked intersection in
`Washington, D.C.
`
`pharmacy.[41]
`
`Walgreens stores were once connected to local
`groceries. In Chicago, their flagship market, they
`teamed up with either Eagle Food Centers or
`Dominick's Finer Foods, usually with a "walkthru" to
`the adjoining store and often sharing personnel. This
`concept was instated to compete with the popular
`dual-store format used by the chief competitor Jewel-
`Osco/Albertsons-Sav-On. They eventually ended the
`relationship with Eagle and focused primarily on a
`connection to Dominick's stores. PharmX-Rexall
`filled the vacated Walgreen locations joined to Eagle
`stores.
`
`A Walgreens on Rt.1 South,
`Saugus, Massachusetts
`
`In its 2009 business model, Walgreens are freestanding corner stores, with the entrance
`on the street with the most traffic flow, figuratively making it a "corner drugstore"
`similar to how many independent pharmacies evolved. Many stores have a drive-through
`
`Most freestanding stores have a similar look and layout, including a bigger and more spacious layout than certain stores
`within major cities. Newer buildings have a more modern design to them compared to older stores. Stores within major
`cities, such as New York and Chicago, could have multiple floors, most notably their flagship stores. Behind the front
`registers are tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. However, some stores do not sell these products, e.g., New Jersey
`stores that do not sell alcohol and Massachusetts stores that do not sell tobacco.[42] Stores usually have a beauty counter
`located near the cosmetics, with busier stores having a beauty consultant. All stores have a photo department, which is either
`behind the front register or in a separate part of the store. There are self-serve photo kiosks near the photo department,
`where customers can print photos and photo products. All stores have a pharmacy, usually located in the back, where people
`can drop off and pick up prescriptions as well as purchase certain drugs containing pseudoephedrine.
`
`Lawsuits and criticism against Walgreens
`
`Allegations of discrimination
`
`In March 2008, Walgreens settled a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that alleged the
`company discriminated against African Americans for $24 million.[43] The settlement was split between the 10,000 African-
`
`3 of 11
`
`6/6/2022, 1:53 PM
`
`

`

`Walgreens - Wikipedia
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walgreens
`
`American employees of the company.[43] In the agreement, Walgreens avoided any admission of guilt.
`
`The decree, one of the largest monetary settlements in a race case by the EEOC, provides for the payment of over
`$24 million to a class of thousands of African American workers and orders comprehensive injunctive relief
`designed to improve the company's promotion and store assignment practices.
`
`In September 2011, Walgreens settled a lawsuit with the EEOC that claimed that a store improperly terminated a worker
`with diabetes for eating a package of the store's food while working to stop a hypoglycemia attack.[44]
`
`Drug-fraud
`
`In June 2008, after Walgreens was sued for drug fraud—"switching dosage forms on
`three medications without doctor approvals in order to boost profits"—Walgreens agreed
`to stop these actions and pay $35 million to the federal government, 42 states, and the
`Commonwealth of Puerto Rico," as reported by the Knoxville News Sentinel.[45][46][47]
`
`Medicaid
`
`Also in June 2008, Walgreens "agreed to pay $35 million to the U.S. and 42 states and
`Puerto Rico for overcharging state Medicaid programs by filling prescriptions with more
`expensive dosage forms of ranitidine, a generic form of Zantac, and fluoxetine, which is a
`generic form of Prozac."[48][49]
`
`A Walgreens in Little Egg Harbor,
`New Jersey, which opened in 2006
`
`In 2009 Walgreens threatened to leave the Medicaid program, the state and federal partnership to provide health insurance
`coverage to the poor, in Delaware over reimbursement rates. Walgreens was the largest pharmacy chain in the state and the
`only chain to make such a threat.[50] The state of Delaware and Walgreens reached an agreement on payment rates and the
`crisis was averted.[51]
`
`In 2010 Walgreens stopped accepting Medicaid in Washington state, leaving its one million Medicaid recipients unable to
`get their prescriptions filled at these 121 stores.[52]
`
`On April 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Walgreens agreed to pay $7.9 million in a settlement. The
`fine related to allegations of violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act regarding beneficiaries
`of federal health care programs.[53]
`
`In January 2019, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. agreed to pay more than $269 million to settle federal and state lawsuits
`that accused the corporation of overbilling federal healthcare programs.[54]
`
`Use of proprietary drugs
`
`Walgreens was named in a lawsuit by the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
`Benefits Fund in the Northern District Court of Illinois in January 2012. The suit alleged that Walgreens and Par
`Pharmaceutical violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act[55] in "at least two widespread schemes to
`overcharge" for generic dru