Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Dialite Dial Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3687. |
| Citation | 102 F. Supp. 872 |
| Parties | SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO., v. DIALITE DIAL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
John H. Cantrell, B. H. Carey and Joe A. McCloud, all of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.
Dudley, Duvall & Dudley, Oklahoma City, Okl., Kemper & Wilson, Houston, Tex., for defendants.
This is an action under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, in which the plaintiff, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, seeks a declaration of rights concerning the actions of the defendants in selling to various individuals, within the State of Oklahoma and throughout the six states comprising the system of the plaintiff, certain metal and plastic discs called "Dialites" for use as dial attachments on the dial handsets of the plaintiff. The defendants as cross-plaintiffs assert violation by plaintiff of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.
The so-called Dialites are sold by the defendants for the admitted purpose of distribution by the purchasers, customers of the plaintiff, as an advertising medium, to other customers of plaintiff for use on telephone handsets of the plaintiff. It is customary practice for the Dialite device to carry the advertiser's name and telephone number.
Plaintiff is required to file tariffs with the regulatory bodies in each state where plaintiff operates, and with the Federal Communications Commission. The following provision appears in the tariffs of the plaintiff as filed with the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma:
Substantially similar provisions are contained in the tariffs filed in each of the other states and with the Federal Communications Commission.
The Telephone Company furnishes facilities for the use of subscribers. It does not make a sale or lease of the equipment. Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. New York Telephone Company, 271 U.S. 23, 46 S.Ct. 363, 70 L.Ed. 808. Moreover, it appears that plaintiff's customers and subscribers sign service contracts, in most instances, whereby they agree to be bound by the tariffs filed by the Telephone Company. Defendants have knowledge of these circumstances and their sales of Dialite devices, with this knowledge, for intended use on the handsets of plaintiff constitute repeated and continuing inducements to the customers of plaintiff to breach their contracts with the plaintiff.
The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. National Merchandising Corp.
...system. There thus is no chance of mechanical difficulty of the type considered possible in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Dialite Dial Co., D.C.W.D.Okl., 102 F.Supp. 872, 873, appeal dismissed by stipulation, sub nom ine Dialite Dial Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 10 Cir., 197......
-
Savoy Record Co. v. Mercury Record Corp.
...N.J.L. 582, 175 A. 62, 99 A.L.R. 1; Hallmark Productions v. Mosley, 8 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 904, 909; Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Dialite Dial Co., D.C.W.D. Okl.1951, 102 F.Supp. 872; and Brooklyn Nat. League Baseball Club v. Pasquel, D.C. E.D.Mo.1946, 66 F.Supp. 117, The defense is interp......
-
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Minor
...the use of its subscribers and does not make a sale or lease of the equipment,--such is recognized in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Dialite Dial Co., D.C.W.D.Okl.1951, 102 F.Supp. 872, and the defendants suggest no reason and cite no authority as to why a telephone directory furnished ......
-
DIALITE DIAL COMPANY v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, 4462.
...PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and PICKETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed June 11, 1952, pursuant to stipulation. D.C., 102 F.Supp. 872. ...