Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-20397.
EXXON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OXXFORD CLOTHES, INC., and Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
April 10, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before KING, GARWOOD and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Oxxford Clothes, Inc., and Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. (Oxxford), appeal an order of the
district court dismissing asserted affirmative defenses. Concluding that such an order is not an
appealable partial final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss this appeal.
This case arises out of a trademark dispute between Exxon and Oxxford over Oxxford's use
of the stylized interlocking "XX" symbol which Exxon has used since the early 1970s. Oxxford
answered Exxon's claim of trademark dilution by asserting a number of affirmative defenses, including
those of abandonment through naked licensing, misuse of trademark, and third party use. Exxon
filed, inter alia, a motion for summary judgment on the merits of Oxxford's proffered affirmative
defenses. The district court granted Exxon's motion in a memorandum opinion and order, and
subsequently certified that order as an appealable partial final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b). Oxxford noticed an appeal from the Rule 54(b) judgment.1 After that appeal
had been docketed, this Court requested the parties brief the issue of whether the order striking
1The district court also certified this order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),
and this Court subsequently granted Oxxford's timely application to permit the appeal under
section 1292(b). This section 1292(b) appeal was docketed as our No. 96-20520; that appeal, in
turn, was later consolidated with another appeal, No. 96-20398, arising from this case. Although
we consolidated the instant appeal (No. 96-20397) with the other two (consolidated) appeals for
oral argument, our conclusion concerning the proper mode of appealing the district court's order
prompts us to dispose of this appeal separately. The merits of Oxxford's appeal, which are
properly before this Court in Appeal No. 96-20520, are considered in a separate opinion.

Oxxford's affirmative defenses was certifiable under Rule 54(b) (and concomitantly appealable under
28 U.S.C. § 1291).
Oxxford argues that "as a practical matter" the district court's ruling dismissing all of its
affirmative defenses determines the outcome of the case because those defenses, particularly that of
naked licensing, negate Exxon's dilution claim. Compare United States Sugar Corp. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 196 F.2d 1015, 1016 (5th Cir.1952) ("[a]n order merely striking one of several defenses,
leaving others on the record, and granting leave to amend, is not a "final' decision within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291") (citations omitted). We cannot agree, in light of the extensive and
persuasive authority holding that "[t]he term "claim' ... upon which an appealable judgment may be
entered [is] defined as a cause of action." Smith v. Benedict, 279 F.2d 211, 213 (7th Cir.1960), citing
School Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101 (9th Cir.1958). See National Union Fire Ins. v. City
Sav., F.S.B., 28 F.3d 376, 382 (3d Cir.1994); Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 19
F.3d 547, 552 (10th Cir.1994), opinion modified in other respects on reh'g, 27 F.3d 481 (10th
Cir.1994); W.L. Gore & Associates v. International Medical Prosthetics Research Assoc., Inc., 975
F.2d 858, 863 (Fed.Cir.1992); County of Hennepin v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 587 F.2d 945, 946
(8th Cir.1978); Flynn & Emrich Company v. Greenwood, 242 F.2d 737, 741 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
353 U.S. 976, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957). See also United States v. Florian, 312 U.S.
656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1105 (1941). While Oxxford's case may indeed be lost as a practical
matter, there is of yet no judgment either granting or denying relief on Exxon's dilution claim.
Accordingly, the district court erred in certifying the order under Rule 54(b), and in the absence of
a dispositive final judgment we have no authority to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal under 28
U.S.C. § 1291.2
APPEAL DISMISSED
2The narrow "collateral order" exception to section 1291 is wholly inapplicable, because the
order is not collateral to merits, but rather determines merits defenses, and it would be fully and
effectively reviewable on appeal if and when a final judgment is rendered in Exxon's favor on its
claim. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 1718-19,
135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221,
93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); County of Hennepin, 587 F.2d at 946.