Sorensen

This is the second time that this ease has been before this court. Since, in our view, all issues save one were disposed of on the first appeal, reference is here made to the decision of this court on the former presentation. Pyrate Corporation v. Sorensen et al., 44 F.(2d) 323 .

The former opinion of this court contained a full statement of the facts, which we summarize hereinbelow, with such omissions and additions as are rendered desirable by the .situation on the present appeal;

The appellee and cross-appellant, a corporation having its principal place of business at Portland, Or., and hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, entered into a contract with the appellants and cross-appellees, hereinafter to be designated as the defendants Soren-sen and Dee, who are both residents of Los Angeles, Cal. Under the contract, the defendants were given the exclusive right to sell “a cleansing product known as and sold under the registered trade name of ‘Pyrate,’ both in bulk and package form.”

The contract is dated July 10, 1925, and was to continue for a period of twelve months from that date, with the privilege of renewal for a further period of four years, and, at the expiration…