Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Eureka Water Co. v. Nestle Waters North America

690 F.3d 1139 (2012)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Eureka Water Co. v. Nestle Waters North America

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

690 F.3d 1139 (2012)

Facts

Eureka Water Company (Eureka) (plaintiff) was a regional franchisee of Ozarka Water Company (Ozarka), a predecessor in interest to Nestle Waters North America, Inc. (Nestle) (defendant). Ozarka was acquired by another predecessor in interest to Nestle, and in 1975, Ozarka and that entity entered into a distributorship agreement (1975 agreement) pursuant to which Eureka paid $9,000 for a royalty-free right and license to use the Ozarka mark in connection with the processing, bottling, sale, and distribution within Eureka’s territory of purified water or drinking water made from Ozarka drinking-water concentrates. The 1975 agreement also provided that Nestle’s predecessor in interest would furnish Ozarka with drinking-water concentrates for production of Ozarka drinking water; however, if a suitable supplier could be found, Nestle’s predecessor would provide the third-party supplier with the formula needed to produce the concentrates for Eureka. In 1992, Nestle began selling Ozarka-branded spring water to retailers in Eureka’s territory. Eureka argued that this action violated the 1975 agreement. To resolve the dispute, Nestle agreed to pay Eureka a royalty or invasion fee on products Nestle sold to retailers in Eureka’s territory. In 2003, Nestle unilaterally reduced the royalty rates and stopped paying the fees altogether by 2007. Nestle also stopped selling Ozarka spring water to Eureka at a lower price than Nestle offered to other purchasers. Eureka sued Nestle, arguing that the 1975 agreement granted Eureka an exclusive license to sell all Ozarka-branded water, including spring water, in Eureka’s territory. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Eureka, and the district court entered a declaratory judgment that the 1975 agreement applied to all Ozarka products, including Ozarka spring water. Nestle appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hartz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership