Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory I. Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 1629.,1629. |
| Citation | 95 F.2d 711 |
| Parties | INDIAN TERRITORY OIL & GAS CO. v. INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
W. H. Kornegay, of Vinita, Okl., for appellant.
Donald Prentice, of Bartlesville, Okl. (W. P. McGinnis and Fred M. Carter, both of Bartlesville, Okl., Samuel H. Riggs, of Tulsa, Okl., W. T. Anglin, of Holdenville, Okl., and R. Y. Stevenson, of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company instituted this action against Indian Territory Oil & Gas Company to restrain the defendant from using its corporate name or any other name sufficiently similar in sound or appearance to the corporate name and trade-names of plaintiff to cause uncertainty or confusion in identity. The court found that plaintiff was incorporated under the laws of New Jersey in 1901; that it has been engaged since that time in the production, manufacture, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, casinghead gas, gasoline, and other petroleum products in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Montana, and New Mexico; that it owns a large number of leases, royalties, mineral rights, and other property; that it has drilled many oil wells and gas wells; that on January 1, 1935, the book value of its assets exceeded $130,000,000; that its daily average gross production of oil during the year 1935 was 33,532 barrels; that on December 31st of that year it owned producing oil leases covering 25,109.12 acres, producing gas leases covering 340,640 acres, producing royalties covering 5,553.86 acres, nonproducing oil and gas leases and mineral rights covering 729,363.68 acres, and nonproducing royalty covering 91,063.77 acres; that it has established a reputation among those engaged in the oil industry and among the general public for business integrity, financial responsibility, and fair dealing which constitutes good will worth far more than $3,000; that it is generally known and referred to in the oil industry and by the public by its corporate name and by the popular names and abbreviations Indian Territory Oil Company, Indian Territory Company, Indian Territory, I. T., and I. T. I. O.; that the oil industry and the general public have associated such names and abbreviations with plaintiff for a long period of years; that Indian Territory Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff, was incorporated under the laws of Delaware in 1928, and qualified to transact business in Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas; that it was dissolved in 1933; that Indian Territory Royalty Company was organized under the laws of Delaware in 1930, and qualified to transact business in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas; that plaintiff owned a majority of the stock issued by such company; that its name was changed to Foster Minerals Corporation; that the business of Indian Territory Company and Indian Territory Royalty Company was transacted from the offices of plaintiff in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, under the same management and personnel as that of plaintiff, and the public dealt with the three corporations as one entity; that defendant Indian Territory Oil & Gas Company was incorporated under the laws of Oklahoma in July, 1935, and is authorized to engage in the business of producing, refining, transporting, and marketing crude oil, gas, and other petroleum products, and to acquire and hold property of all classes reasonably necessary to conduct such business; that its authorized capital stock consists of 1,000 shares of the par value of $10 each; that at the time of the trial, it had not begun a regular course of business and owned a very small amount of property; that plaintiff demanded that the corporate name of defendant be changed in order to avoid uncertainty and confusion in identity and offered to pay the reasonable cost of making the change; and that the similarity in corporate names had caused and would continue to cause confusion and deception.
A decree was entered enjoining defendant from using the corporate name Indian Territory Oil & Gas Company, or any name containing the words Indian Territory Oil & Gas Company, Indian Territory Company, or Indian Territory, or the letters I. T. or I. T. I. O., or any other words similar in sound or appearance to the corporate name of plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
The jurisdiction of the trial court is drawn in question....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. Yost, CV 94-0089-S-LMB.
...describe an identifiable geographical region in Idaho. Cf. McCarthy, 14.021 n. 10 (citing Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 95 F.2d 711 (10th Cir.1938), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 607, 59 S.Ct. 67, 83 L.Ed. 386 (1938) ("indian territory" held to be geograp......
-
Staples Coal Co. v. City Fuel Co.
...United States Ozone Co. of America, 7 Cir., 62 F.2d 881;Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 10 Cir., 95 F.2d 711; Household Finance Corp. v. Household Finance Corp., D.C., 11 F.Supp. 3;Liberty Life Assurance Society v. Heralds of Liberty of Delaware, Inc......
-
Riverbank Laboratories v. Hardwood Products Corp.
...Nut Co., D.C.N.D.Ill.1945, 61 F.Supp. 76. And it has been expressed in other jurisdictions. Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 10 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 711, certiorari denied 1938, 305 U.S. 607, 59 S.Ct. 67, 83 L.Ed. 386; Little Tavern Shops v. Davis, 4 C......
-
LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.
...g., Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Co., 179 U.S. 665, 675, 676, 21 S.Ct. 270, 45 L.Ed. 365; Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory Oil Co., 10 Cir., 95 F.2d 711; Governor, etc., Trading Into Hudson Bay v. H. Bay Fur Co., D.C., 33 F.2d 801; Jewish Colonization Ass'n v......