Evans Group, Inc. v. Robert Foti and Foti Fuels, Inc., 59 A.3d 744

Foti Fuels, Inc. (Foti) sued Evans Group, Inc. (Evans) for $68,864 after Evans terminated their fuel-supply agreement.
Evans and Foti were wholesale distributors; Quick Stop, a Citgo-branded retailer, was supplied by Foti under a Citgo-discount arrangement with Evans.
Foti delivered Citgo fuel to Quick Stop; payments flowed through a chain involving Citgo, Evans, and Quick Stop.
Evans retroactively terminated the agreement to deliver fuel to Quick Stop, effective April 2, 2009, and demanded the balance due.
Foti claimed the unilateral termination violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) protections for franchisees; the trial court held Foti was not a PMPA franchisee.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Foti had no authority to use the Citgo trademark and thus no PMPA franchisee status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Foti a PMPA franchisee granted trademark authority?	Foti argues it had authority to use the Citgo trademark through its arrangement with Evans.	Evans contends Foti had no rights to the Citgo trademark and thus no franchisee status.	No; Foti lacked authority to use the Citgo trademark and is not a PMPA franchisee.
Does PMPA protection require a direct franchisor-franchisee contract with the retailer?	Foti relies on the distributor-distributor relationship to confer franchise status.	Evans argues the PMPA requires a direct contract with a retailer or a direct franchisor-franchisee chain.	Yes; PMPA requires a direct contractual franchise relationship, which was not shown here.
Does Handy support a franchise relationship between Evans and Foti?	Handy suggests a chain could create franchise rights even with a subdistributor.	Handy is distinguishable; it involved direct relationships and different facts.	Handy is inapposite; it does not establish a franchise here.
Can a subdistributor’s control over branding create PMPA protection?	Foti could be protected if it controlled or could authorize Citgo branding.	Evans retained branding control; Foti did not control the Citgo trademark.	No; lack of branding control defeats PMPA protection.

Checkrite Petroleum, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 678 F.2d 5 (2d Cir. 1982) (PMPA framework for franchise termination protections)
Mac’s Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 559 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2010) (PMPA validity and termination standards)
Lasko v. Consumers Petroleum of Conn., Inc., 547 F. Supp. 211 (D. Conn. 1981) (PMPA focus on authorization chain)
Handy v. R.L. Vallee, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 236 (D. Vt. 1998) (franchise relationship requires direct contract)
Rogue Valley Stations, Inc. v. Birk Oil Co., 568 F. Supp. 337 (D. Or. 1983) (franchise exists only with contract between parties)
DuFresne’s Auto Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1993) (franchise requires contractual relationship)
Hutchens v. Eli Roberts Oil Co., 838 F.2d 1138 (11th Cir. 1988) (no PMPA relief without direct contract)
Koylum, Inc. v. Peksen Realty Corp., 272 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussion of who qualifies as franchisor under PMPA)