No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Historical Origins of the Adoption of the EXXON Name and Trademark
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2012
Abstract
The adoption in 1972 of a new name by a major American oil company had deep historical roots reaching back to the 1911 Supreme Court decision in the Standard Oil antitrust case and to subsequent marketing conflicts between the Standard companies.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1973
References
1 News Release, Media Relations, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Houston, Texas, released on May 9, 1972. For different stories based on the announcement, see the Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1972; the New York Times, May 10, 1972; the Journal of Commerce, May 10, 1972; the Washington Post, May 10, 1972; the Oil and Gas Journal, May 15, 1972; “ ‘Exxon’ In; ‘Humble’ and ‘Esso’ Out,” National Petroleum News, June 1972, 37; “A New Trademark,” The Lamp [a magazine published by the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey)], LIV (Fall, 1972), 2–5.
2 Jamieson, J. K., Chairman of the Board, “To Shareholders of Jersey Standard,” The Lamp, LIV (Fall, 1972), 1Google Scholar.
3 Letter of J. K. Jamieson, Chairman of the Board, “To Shareholders of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey),” September 11, 1972. The letter called the special meeting of the shareholders and explained its purpose.
4 For an account of the special meeting, see the New York Times, October 25, 1972, 63, 66.
5 Transcript of Record, Standard Oil Company Et Al., Appellants, vs. The United States, A, 5–170.
6 These volumes have been published under the general title: Transcript of Record, United States of America, Petitioner, v. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Et Al., Defendants, and the individual volumes as Petitioner's Testimony, Petitioner's Exhibits, Defendants’ Testimony and Defendants’ Exhibits.
7 173 F. 177.
8 Lowry, Edward G., “The Supreme Court Speaks,” Harper's Weekly, LV (June 3, 1911), 8Google Scholar; 221 U.S. 1.
9 Giddens, Paul H., Standard Oil Company (Indiana): Oil Pioneer of the Middle West (New York, 1956), 130–31Google Scholar.
10 Ibid., 133–35.
11 Stenographer's Transcript of Hearing Before Honorable Charles Martindale, Master in Chancery, 1926, United States of America, Petitioner, vs. Standard Oil Company (Indiana) Et Al., Defendants, VI, 3253–3256. Hereinafter referred to as Hearings Before Martindale.
12 For example, Standard Oil Company (Indiana) had a large investment in refineries and a marketing organization but no crude oil supply or pipelines.
13 Giddens, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 209, 220.
14 Ibid., 185–87.
15 Gibb, George Sweet and Knowlton, Evelyn H., The Resurgent Years, 1911–1927 (New York, 1956), 411, 636Google Scholar.
16 Ibid., 412.
17 Giddens, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 140, 172, 213.
18 Gibb and Knowlton, Resurgent Years, 487–88.
19 Ibid., 493; Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Corporation, Esso, Incorporated, a Corporation, and Standard Oil Company, a New Jersey Corporation, Appellants, v. American Oil Company, a Corporation, and Standard Oil Company, an Indiana Corporation, Appellees, United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, January 9, 1969, 10. Hereinafter referred to as Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, January 9, 1969.
20 Giddens, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 544.
21 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, January 9, 1969, 12.
22 Giddens, Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 544–47.
23 Ibid., 545.
24 Ibid.
25 Transcript of Record, I, 39–69.
26 98F. (2d) 1.
27 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, January 9, 1969, 13.
28 Ibid., 2, 11–12, 28–29.
29 Ibid., 11.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., 13.
32 Ibid., 14.
33 224 F. Supp. 909 (E.D. Mo. 1963).
34 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, January 9, 1969, 1–35.
35 The New York Times, May 10, 1972; the Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1972; the Oil and Gas Journal, May 15, 1972; the National Petroleum News, June, 1972; “A New Trademark,” The Lamp, LIV (Fall, 1972), 2–3Google Scholar.