## Facts

- Humble Oil & Refining Co. used the HUMBLE mark for decades in petroleum-related commerce, including extensive signage and branded packaged products.
- In 1972–1973, the company adopted EXXON as its sole primary brand and changed its corporate name to Exxon Company, U.S.A., supported by substantial advertising.
- After rebranding, Exxon did not market HUMBLE as an active brand; instead it undertook a “trademark maintenance” program that included limited sales of products in containers bearing HUMBLE (often with EXXON), HUMBLE-labeled invoices through related entities, and sales in HUMBLE/EXXON-branded drums.
- Humble Exploration Company, Inc., a Texas corporation, adopted “Humble” as its trade name in 1974 for oil-and-gas-related business activities.
- Exxon demanded Humble Exploration stop using “Humble”; after refusal, Exxon sued for trademark infringement and sought an injunction.
- The district court found no abandonment of HUMBLE and enjoined Humble Exploration’s use of “Humble”; Humble Exploration appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Exxon abandoned the HUMBLE trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1127 where post-rebranding activity consisted largely of limited, arranged “maintenance” sales.
2. Whether likelihood of confusion must be assessed only among purchasers, or may include a broader relevant public.

## Decision

- Reversed the district court’s finding that Exxon’s “maintenance” sales constituted sufficient use to avoid prima facie abandonment; such sales were insufficient as a matter of law.
- Remanded for factual findings on whether Exxon had intent to resume bona fide commercial use of the HUMBLE mark.
- Affirmed the district court’s determination that likelihood of confusion could be measured by confusion in a broader relevant public and that the confusion finding was not erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, abandonment requires discontinued use with intent not to resume; consecutive nonuse for the statutory period creates prima facie abandonment.
- Token or contrived uses made primarily to preserve trademark rights, rather than genuine commercial exploitation, do not constitute “use” sufficient to defeat prima facie abandonment.
- Residual public recognition or goodwill associated with a former mark does not, by itself, prevent abandonment absent intent to resume bona fide use.
- For infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, likelihood of confusion may extend beyond actual purchasers; the relevant public may include others who encounter the mark in the market context (such as suppliers and counterparties).

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that Exxon's post-rebranding, arranged “maintenance” transactions were legally insufficient to prevent prima facie abandonment of HUMBLE, and required a remand to determine whether Exxon intended to resume bona fide use; it also approved evaluating confusion within a broader relevant public rather than limiting the inquiry to purchasers.


Exxon Corp. v. Humble Expl. Co., 695 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1983)