Opinion ID: 59587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The 1983 Lawsuit and 1984 Settlement Agreement

Text: In 1983, Riley filed suit against M.J. Systems in the Western District of Oklahoma. In that suit, Riley alleged that M.J. Systems was reproducing and distributing images of well logs with the Riley’s mark on them.4 Riley alleged 3 A raster image is a type of digital image and includes file formats such as GIF, JPEG, TIFF, BMP, PICT, and PCX. 4 Although not stated by the parties, we can infer that either some of the well logs with the Riley’s mark on them were filed publicly, which allowed M.J. Systems to scan them, or some of Riley’s customers permitted M.J. Systems to film their privately held logs. 3 No. 06-20624 that the microfiche copies were of a different and inferior quality than Riley’s copies. The litigation ended in 1984 when the parties signed a Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, M.J. Systems agreed to pay $12,000 to Riley and to use certain “best efforts” to prevent Riley’s marks from appearing on M.J. Systems’ logs in the future. The portion of the Agreement regarding M.J. Systems’ best efforts states as follows: 2. M.J. agrees to use the following best efforts in preventing any of RILEY’S MARKS from appearing on any product made or caused to be made by or on behalf of M.J. from and after the date first above written. a. If the creation of a product by or on behalf of M.J. includes the use of any paper well log containing a header located at the beginning of the log and in which a RILEY’S MARK appears (such type of log being hereinafter referred to as a “RILEY’S LOG”), M.J. agrees to delete or otherwise mask or mark out, to the extent possible, such header so that such header does not appear in the M.J. product . . . . Paragraph 3 describes the course M.J. Systems is to take should the owner of a well log object to any permanent mark M.J. Systems may need to make on the well log in order to mask or mark out the Riley’s mark. For its part, Riley agrees in Paragraph 4 to use its best efforts to remove its stickers and labels from public copies of well logs. The Agreement also provides that Riley and M.J. Systems will release certain claims against each other: 6. RILEY hereby releases M.J. from all claims arising prior to the date first above written and asserted by RILEY against M.J. in the aforementioned lawsuit. 7. M.J. hereby releases RILEY from all claims arising prior to the date first above written and asserted by M.J. against RILEY in the aforementioned lawsuit. 4 No. 06-20624 Finally, the Agreement contains a notice and cure provision in the event either party defaults on its obligations: 8. In the event that M.J. fails to make the payments as are specified in paragraph 1, RILEY shall provide 15 days notice to cure. If a payment is not made within said 15 days, RILEY shall have the option to either terminate this Agreement or sue for specific performance. Should any other default occur by either party to this Agreement, the nondefaulting party shall provide a 15 day right to cure to the defaulting party. Should cure not occur with [sic] said 15 days, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to:
Agreement, or b. give notice that its obligations to perform are abated until the default is cured. The question before us today is whether this Agreement prohibits Plaintiffs from bringing trademark and similar state law claims against Defendants for alleged trademark violations that occurred after the Agreement was signed.5