Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House

Exxon Sues Roxx Vodka Over Xs: Oil And Vodka Are Oh So Similar

from the drinking-from-the-gas-pump dept

Mon, Nov 2nd 2015 11:39pm — Timothy Geigner

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.

"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."

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:

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

Filed Under: trademark, vodka, xx
Companies: exxon, roxx

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonmylous, 3 Nov 2015 @ 12:01am

Lawyer thankin'
Exxon makes Ethanol fuel.
Ethanol contains ethyl alcohol (drinkin.
Exxon makes alcohol.
Trademark infringement!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 12:40am

Oh FFS, when is the lawyers making themselves seem needed bubble finally going to burst?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 1:41am

The orthodox christian churches uses interlocking X's too. Maybe they should trademark-bully Exxon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 1:59am

When an oil company has to make money with lawsuits about a logo should we be worried that the whole peak oil thing was real and they are trying to find alternative sources of income?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 3:23am

technically...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aussie Geoff (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 3:38am

Re: Lawyer thankin'
Er no. Ethanol (UIPAC name) is ethyl alcohol (common name)!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 3:51am

The captain of the Exxon Valdez made Exxon hate alcohol ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 4:54am

I always get porn confused with exxon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blue Adept (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:16am

Not the first time they have bullied people not in their industry
Minolta had a line of camera lenses known as Maxxum. They used a similar xx pattern as Exxon and were sued. They made Minolta change their entire line of lenses to be changed so they no longer had the crossed x's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:50am

Re:
They'll say it's just backwards Russians with no impact or some such stupidity.

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 thread ]
David (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:51am

Next they will sue Red Foxx.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:51am

Joseph Hazelwood?
Wonder, if Roxx was what he was drinking in 1989...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:54am

I'd argue they actually have a case here. After all, both liquids give my stomach that fuzzy-warm feeling when I ingest them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 5:55am

LMAO
One of the Big Bad Corporations in the Marvel Universe(s) is the energy company Roxxon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 6:41am

Monster Exxon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:19am

Re:
Yeah because the lubrication that is found in exxon is always found in XXX Porn :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monday (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:25am

Too much free time...
It occurs to me that this prolly has very little to do with upper Management. This sounds like a legal department making work for itself when in actual fact they have too much time on their hands, and took the "get to work!" from their department head the wrong way - trademark trolling will only save their jobs so many times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Q Public, 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:50am

Dear Exxon,

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:15am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXX_%282002_film%29

Soon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christenson, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:17am

WWII automotive Fuel: Ethanol
Well, I *could* run my car off of Roxx -- if they would only make it high enough proof! E85, anyone?

However, the price of Roxx might be just a wee bit high--prolly around $20-40 per gallon! lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:36am

Why yes, I recently tried to fill my car with Roxx by mistake. It kept me awake all night honking that damned horn in a drunken frenzy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:54am

Oh, for fuxx ache!
More bored lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One Prince William Sound Fisherman, 3 Nov 2015 @ 9:16am

exxon OWES ME $2,000,000.00
Fuck exxon. They never paid a lot of us fishermen for dumping 11,000,000 gallons of oil in our fishing grounds. FUCK exxon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moron in a hurry, 3 Nov 2015 @ 10:36am

That explains it! Damn scammers!
The other day I changed my oil and thought I would try out this really clean looking synthetic oil from eXXon called RoXX.

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 thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 3 Nov 2015 @ 7:20pm

In large quantities?
Sure. In large quantities, both gas and vodka are bad for you! But you can drink a lot more vodka than gasoline...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Principal, 3 Nov 2015 @ 8:05pm

Bullies
Just another case of bullying. And apparently more money than they know what to do with. Maybe they should spend this money on something more worthwhile, like cleaning up oil spills and stocking fish. Jerks.

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 thread ]
Harald K, 3 Nov 2015 @ 11:30pm

Makes perfect sense to me, they're both in the business of poisoning people for profit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2015 @ 5:05am

Re: Not the first time they have bullied people not in their industry
Here is the information on the trademark from Wikipedia.

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2015 @ 5:20am

Next weeks news
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 thread ]
Zonker, 4 Nov 2015 @ 11:44am

"The public associates the three-stroke interlocking X design with 'Exxon' and 'ExxonMobil,' and they represent a valuable part of ExxonMobil's branding.
Odd, I thought that it was the Valdez oil spill that the public associates with Exxon and ExxonMobil. That was some viral marketing back in the day. I never even noticed the stupid three-stroke XX in their logo before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jean Ferguson, 4 Nov 2015 @ 12:40pm

EXXON vs Roxx
Well, Exxon was suing FOXX and then dropped that, so now they go after a great start up company that makes VODKA???
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 thread ]
Monday (profile), 4 Nov 2015 @ 2:06pm

Maybe some Sec. 230 'like' protection...
I've been reading the replies from this, along with many other TD threads, and it really sounds like some sort of "Section 230 of the CDA" kinda protection really needs to be drafted for the "Little Guy", and even the big ones, who are (seemingly) endlessly meeting with these constant, resource consuming frivolous lawsuits over non-extant copyright infringement.

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 thread ]
Clay Gordon, 4 Nov 2015 @ 11:58pm

Exxon Suxx
Just could not resist the irony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Radford, 12 Nov 2015 @ 11:24pm

Cross of Lorraine
There was an Isaac Asimov story that had a young French boy mistaking the interlocking x's in Exxon for a Cross of Lorraine tilted to one side.

So maybe the French or the American Lung Association should sue Exxon for trademark infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]