Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co.(Kentucky)
Decision Date | 13 March 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3137. |
Citation | 229 F. Supp. 586 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Parties | HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY (KENTUCKY), Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leslie D. Taggart, Nicholas John Stathis, Ronald O. Thomas and Christopher J. Aeschlimann of Watson, Leavenworth, Kelton & Taggart, New York City, Forrest M. Darrough and Dillard W. Baker, Houston, Tex., F. X. Clair, New York City, Joe A. Thompson, Jackson, Miss., George F. Woodliff, of Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, Jackson, Miss., M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, Miss., for plaintiff.
Beverly W. Pattishall and W. Thomas Hofstetter, of Woodson, Pattishall & Garner, Chicago, Ill., F. R. Kirkham, James B. Atkin and Harlan M. Richter, of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., Dana Brown, Louisville, Ky., William E. Suddath, Jr., of Watkins & Eager, Jackson, Miss., Robert W. Thompson, Jr., of Mize, Thompson & Mize, Gulfport, Miss., for defendant.
This lawsuit involves a controversy between the plaintiff, Humble Oil & Refining Company, hereinafter referred to as Humble, and Standard Oil Company of Kentucky, hereinafter referred to as Kentucky and grows out of a contract between the two, entered into on the 27th day of January, 1955, involving the right to use the trade name ESSO. Involved also are two other contracts.
The first contract was executed on March 24, 1934 between Penola, Inc., plaintiff's predecessor, and defendant, and by its terms appointed defendant the sole distributor in the 5-state area here involved of ESSO marine lubricants and other petroleum products supplied by or under authority of plaintiff's predecessor. This contract is an exhibit to the amended complaint.
The second contract, an exhibit to the amended complaint, was executed on September 15, 1938 and was between Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the plaintiff's predecessor, and the defendant, Kentucky, by which Kentucky was granted the privilege of using the trade mark ESSOTANE in the 5-state area here involved.
The 5-state area here involved consists of the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky and Mississippi.
The last contract, and the controlling contract, was executed on the 27th of January 1955 between Esso Standard Oil Company, a Delaware corporation, plaintiff's predecessor, and the Standard Oil Company of Kentucky, the defendant herein, and is set out hereinbelow first. In order to reach a correct solution of the problem involved it is necessary to consider each and every sentence and paragraph of the contracts, and for that reason they are set out verbatim.
"TRADEMARK
LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Agreement made this 27th day of January, 1955 by and between ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY (hereinafter called ESSO STANDARD), a Delaware corporation having an office at 15 West 51st Street, in the City and State of New York; and
STANDARD OIL COMPANY (KENTUCKY) (hereinafter called KENTUCKY), a Kentucky corporation having an office in the Starks Building, City of Louisville, State of Kentucky:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. American Oil Company
...1958). A decision initially to the contrary, evidently the only one, involving special facts, is Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co. (Kentucky), 229 F.Supp. 586 (S.D.Miss.1964); but this was reversed, 363 F.2d 945 (5 Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1007, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2......
-
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY v. American Oil Company
...34 F.2d 802 (E.D. Mo.1929). The one exception to this universal holding was found in the case of Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co. (Kentucky), 229 F.Supp. 586 (D.C.Miss.1964), where Standard Oil (Kentucky) had been distributing Esso products under a licensing agreement which had......
-
Standard Oil Co.(Kentucky) v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
...between the pronunciation of Esso and SO and noted the dissimilarity in the appearance of their respective signs. The court said (229 F.Supp. at 626-627): "While there is some phonetic similarity between the words ESSO and the trademark S.O., yet the sound when pronounced is not entirely th......
-
B&S MS Holdings, LLC v. Landrum
...Farmers Bank of Kosciusko, Miss. v. State ex rel. Moore , 651 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Miss. 1995) (citing Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Standard Oil Co. (Ky.) , 229 F. Supp. 586 (D.C. Miss. 1964), rev'd on other grounds by 363 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1966). As Section 79-29-1201 provides, the policy o......