Exxon Sues Roxx Vodka Over Xs: Oil And Vodka Are Oh So Similar
from the drinking-from-the-gas-pump dept
On the heels of our recent story about Exxon entering a trademark spat with Fox Networks' FXX channel over the apparently confusion-inducing inclusion of interlocking "X"s in both logos, it appears that Exxon is attempting to make this a thing for some reason. That particular dispute ended in a settlement for which no terms were disclosed, but with, at least this author believes, little or no money changing hands. That said, one of the items of defense in Fox's response was to point out just how many other companies out there have logos with interlocking "X"s that Exxon wasn't annoying with its unintelligible views on trademark law. Judging by Exxon's recent suit against Nielsen Spirits over its Roxx Vodka beverage, which also has a logo using interlocking "X"s, Exxon apparently took Fox's defense as an impetus to go trademark-suit-hunting.
William Holbrook, Exxon's corporate media relations senior adviser, recently commented via email about the trademark infringement case.Outstanding, except we're in the exact same place as we were with FXX, a case in which it took two years to come to the conclusion that it is probably unlikely a customer is going to confuse oil/gasoline with a television station. I suppose in this case at least both brands represent liquids, but not even a moron in a hurry would stop by the liquor store to fill up the tank, just because a bottle inside has a "three-stroke interlocking X design" on the label. Roxx's logo doesn't even look anything like Exxon's:
"ExxonMobil is pursuing legal action against Nielsen Spirits for violating our trademark rights by using a three-stroke interlocking X design in the logo for its new 'Roxx Vodka' beverage, and using a three-stroke interlocking X design alone," Holbrook said. "The public associates the three-stroke interlocking X design with 'Exxon' and 'ExxonMobil,' and they represent a valuable part of ExxonMobil's branding. ExxonMobil has protected its three-stroke interlocking X design with numerous trademark registrations, and has been using its three-stroke interlocking X design both alone and as part of ExxonMobil's distinctive family of 'Exxon' and 'ExxonMobil' marks for decades."
The point is that trademark law has a very handy provision within it stating that, for infringement to occur, the two entities must be competing in the same marketplace and industry. Vodka isn't oil. It's only application as a lubricant is a social one, and it won't make your truck go. All the interlocking "X"s in the world won't make it otherwise, yet Exxon's filing claims the opposite.
Nice to know what they think of us, I suppose. Hopefully this suit won't take two years to go away, too...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawyer thankin'
Ethanol contains ethyl alcohol (drinkin.
Exxon makes alcohol.
Trademark infringement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyer thankin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At some point a corporation is finally going to ask why the hell they are paying for litigation this stupid (and if they aren't perhaps the shareholders might look for those with the common sense required).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exxon is called Esso in Canada, I always wondered why, thinking maybe some small company was already called Exxon here, but now that seems unlikely...if someone knows the answer to that question, feel free to tell me.
They sure want to make up money for their legal dept. since the fracking frenzy is about to end and only Exxon when you consider the large oil companies bothers investing in that, so maybe it's some strategy devised to make up for the loss of revenue, they did try the same trick with FX's interlocking F and X right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technically...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the first time they have bullied people not in their industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the first time they have bullied people not in their industry
"In 1985, Minolta introduced a new autofocus SLR camera system named "Maxxum" in the United States. Originally, cameras (such as the Maxxum 7000) lenses and flashes used a logo with the X's crossed in 'MAXXUM'.[5] Exxon considered this a violation of their trademark, and as a result, Minolta was allowed to distribute cameras already produced, but was forced to change the stylistic 'XX' and implement this as a change in new production.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph Hazelwood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much free time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I represent the majority of the public when I say this; Just how freakin' stupid do you think we are??!
Sincerely,
John Q Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWII automotive Fuel: Ethanol
However, the price of Roxx might be just a wee bit high--prolly around $20-40 per gallon! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, for fuxx ache!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exxon OWES ME $2,000,000.00
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That explains it! Damn scammers!
Shortly after changing the oil my motor seized, Billy Jo down the way said the inside of the engine was really clean, like someone cleaned it with alchohol but all the oil had leaked out and thats why is seized.
When I called RoXX to complain about their crappy oil they thought I was some jokster trying to pull a prank, so I called the parent company Exxon and they claimed they never made a product called RoXX.
This article clears it all up, this RoXX company must be some fly by night scam selling fake Exxon oil! Not only does their imitation oil suck, its really expensive too.
From now on I'm using Quaker State, I hear their oil is "Just Damn Good", you can read about it here: http://thelube.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In large quantities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullies
Would be good to know which executive ordered this lawsuit. Get him/her out there on social media for a taste of their own medicine. I'm sure the shareholders are thrilled about this expense as well. Nothing like wasting time and money on frivolous lawsuits that acomplish nothing even if they did win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alchohol company sues Oil company for having combustible like products
How dare you crude oil for your stolen chemical composition....you've got some s'planing to do Lucy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EXXON vs Roxx
What happened to the AMERICAN DREAM? Is it always about the big guys stomping on the little guys??? They can't own the XX's (I see them everywhere, they've been used since the first century AD... Don't they have things to clean up or improve??? SHAME ON THEM!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe some Sec. 230 'like' protection...
If Internet services providers have a level of protection against really bad judgement called lawsuits, how can companies, large or small, be protected from time after time tested stupidity. Unless a company or individual is shown to have knowingly tread on their namebrand etc., then there should be protection like Section 230... BUT HOW???
That is the literal million dollar question. Before any legal proceedings even begin, or some legal 'stamp of approval' gives them consent, the Plaintiff(s) needs to prove they have a really good grasp of copyright law - in the least - and have a definite complaint that needs to be settled.
I'm not a Lawyer, or Legal Professor, so I have no idea how this rampant abuse of the very, very, very broken legal system could be even approached, let alone addressed and / or fixed.
I'm just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exxon Suxx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cross of Lorraine
So maybe the French or the American Lung Association should sue Exxon for trademark infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]