Compania Embotelladora Carty, S. A., Appellant, v. Seven-up Company, Appellee, 279 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1960)

This appeal presents the question whether service of process on the Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc. as the alleged agent of the defendant, the Seven-Up Company, a Missouri corporation, is adequate service so as to confer jurisdiction on the District Court for the Southern District of Florida.¹  The District Judge held that service on the Miami dealer was not service on the defendant and dismissed the suit.

The defendant has its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri and is the sole owner of trademarks, copyrights, and formula relating to a soft drink called "7-Up". The Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc. bottles and sells the drink, using an extract or syrup purchased from the defendant under a contract giving the dealer the exclusive right to sell "7-Up" in Miami. The local dealer supplies its own bottles, crowns, and ingredients other than the extract. The Missouri company exercises no control over the local bottler except in the sense that unless the local bottler complies with certain standards, common to Seven-Up dealers, it may lose its franchise. The Miami dealer had no power to bind the Missouri corporation. The bottling company's sales were for its benefit; the Missouri company benefited only from the sales of the extract to the dealer.

We have carefully considered the pleadings, the depositions, and the exhibits, especially the "Territory Agreement" between the Seven-Up Company of Missouri and its Miami dealer. We agree with the district court that in the circumstances of this case service on the local dealer, the Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., cannot be said to be adequate service upon the Seven-Up Company of Missouri. Stanga v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 5 Cir., 1959, 268 F.2d 544; Valdosta Milling Co. v. Garretson, Fla., 54 So. 2d 196; 113 A.L.R. 9, 108. Cf. Roumel v. Drill Well Oil Company, 5 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 550.

Affirmed.