EXXON Mobil Corp. v. FX Networks, LLC
39 F. Supp. 3d 868
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Exxon Mobil owns federal trademark registrations for EXXON and related interlocking X design marks (the EIX Marks).
- Defendants (Fox entities) launched the FXX television network and use the mark FXX and an interlocking X design; they hold federal registrations for FXX in standard character form.
- Exxon sued, asserting claims including state-law dilution (Count V) among other Lanham Act and common-law claims.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count V, arguing section 43(c)(6) of the Lanham Act preempts state-law dilution claims because Defendants own a federal registration for the same mark in standard character form.
- The core dispute: whether a federal registration for a mark in standard character form bars state-law dilution claims based on unregistered stylized/design variants of that mark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal standard-character registration precludes state-law dilution claims based on unregistered stylized/design variations of the same letters | Exxon: Section 43(c)(6) does not bar dilution claims against unregistered stylized variations; the statute’s phrase “that mark” should be read to mean the specific registered form at issue | Defendants: A standard-character registration covers all depictions/stylizations of the mark, so the Lanham Act preempts state-law dilution claims for those stylized versions | The court held the preemption provision does not extend to unregistered stylized/design variations; denial of the motion to dismiss Count V |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must plead facts plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344 (standard-character registration allows depiction in any font/style but protects the term itself)
- Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 169 (plain statutory language governs absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Westchester Media Co. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 103 F. Supp. 2d 935 (district court found federal registration barred a state dilution claim where the registered mark matched the contested mark)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (court accepts well-pleaded facts as true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)