PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. BRONSON OIL FEE HOLDINGS LLC
1:24-cv-07493
| D.N.J. | Jul 10, 2025Background
- Phillips 66 Company owns and uses registered trademarks and trade dress for the "CONOCO" brand, including various logos and designs associated with its service stations.
- Bronson Oil Fee Holdings, LLC previously had authorization to use CONOCO marks at its retail fuel station, but that agreement expired on September 1, 2021.
- Despite repeated written demands, Bronson did not remove the CONOCO marks or respond to Phillips 66.
- Phillips 66 sued Bronson for trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act after failed attempts to secure compliance.
- Service of process was confirmed as proper on Bronson’s president, but Bronson did not respond or appear.
- Plaintiff sought default judgment and a permanent injunction to prevent further unauthorized use of its marks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default Judgment: Propriety of entering default for failure to respond | Defendant failed to answer; meets default judgment criteria | No appearance or argument submitted | Default judgment appropriate |
| Proper Service of Process | Service made on president of Bronson, thus adequate | No challenge (no response) | Service was proper |
| Trademark/Trade Dress Infringement under Lanham Act | Defendant used CONOCO marks after expiration, causing confusion | No defense presented | Infringement established |
| Permanent Injunction: Whether relief is justified | Ongoing unauthorized use causes irreparable harm/confusion | No defense presented | Permanent injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hritz v. Woma, 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (entry of default judgment left to district court's discretion)
- Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466 (3d Cir. 1994) (elements for federal trademark infringement under Lanham Act)
- S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1992) (likelihood of confusion when infringer uses exact plaintiff’s mark)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prod., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1991) (federal registration as proof of validity and ownership of trademark)
- Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion)