IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Miss.: Preliminary injunction denied in dispute over use of ‘Delta’ for petroleum products and natural gas utility services, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A preliminary injunction was not warranted because there was limited chance of consumer confusion between a seller of petroleum products in tanks and trucks and a regulated utility with a legal monopoly on natural gas distribution via pipeline.

A seller of petroleum products under using the various DELTA FUEL marks was not entitled to an injunction against a regulated utility for using similar DELTA UTILITIES marks, the U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, has held. Even if the marks were somewhat similar, the nature of the products and the means by which they were provided limited any chance of consumer confusion (Delta Fuel Company, LLC v. Delta Utilities, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00410-TSL-LGI (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2025)).

Delta Fuel Company, LLC (Delta Fuel) was a distributor of petroleum products and derivatives in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas using the word mark DELTA FUEL as well as several composite marks containing variations on those words. Delta Utilities, LLC and Delta Utilities MS, LLC (collectively, Delta Utilities) were a regulated utility with a statutory monopoly on the supply of natural gas to consumers via pipeline in several counties throughout Louisiana and Mississippi, and had registered the word mark DELTA UTILITIES and an associated composite mark on an intent-to-use basis.

Delta Fuel brought suit for infringement, alleging that Delta Utilities’ marks were confusingly similar to its own. A month later, Delta Fuel petitioned for a preliminary injunction requiring that Delta Utilities cease use of the marks.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Reviewing the Fifth Circuits’ “digits of confusion” test, the court found that both marks were commercially weak, noting a huge number of “delta” marks used by businesses in the area, even though Delta Utilities had expended substantial amounts of money on advertising its new brand.

The marks shared a dominant element, but the distinctly different words “fuel” and “utilities” showed some distinction between them.

The goods and services were quite different, especially when considered in light of the fact that Delta Utilities held a statutory monopoly. Delta Fuel could not possibly expand into the same service as a regulated utility.

While Delta Fuel argued that confusion between the two was intended by Delta Utilities because a Delta Utilities executive had previously interviewed for a role at Delta Fuel and was aware of the Delta Fuel marks, the court found that this did not show a subjective intention to pass off one’s products as falsely associated with the other.

Finally, while there was evidence of 13 instances of consumer confusion in the form of customers calling Delta Fuel with questions about utility bills owed to Delta Utilities, the court found that this information was meaningless without context, such as how this number related to either party’s total number of customers or total number of callers.

Ultimately the court concluded that Delta Fuel had failed to show a likelihood of confusion.

Remaining injunction factors. The court noted that its decision as to the likelihood of success on the merits was sufficient to deny the motion, but briefly reviewed the remaining factors and held that even if there had been a likelihood of success on the merits, it would have found that Delta Fuel failed to show irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favored an injunction, or that the public interest favored an injunction.

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00410-TSL-LGI.

Judge: Lee, T.

Attorneys: Arnold D. Lee (Spencer Fane LLP) for Delta Fuel Co., LLC. R. David Kaufman (Grower & Hewes, PLLC) for Delta Utilities, LLC and Delta Utilities MS, LLC.

Companies: Delta Fuel Co., LLC; Delta Utilities, LLC; Delta Utilities MS, LLC

Cases: Trademark MississippiNews