Review case 5 1 the coca cola co v koke co of america

The Koke Company of America No. Held, that the continued use of the name with the picture was not a fraud depriving the plaintiff of the right to enjoin infringement and unfair competition in selling a like preparation under the name of "Koke," but that the injunction should not restrain use of the name "Dope," a featureless word not specifically suggestive of "Coca Cola" by similarity or in use, nor forbid manufacture and sale of the product, including the coloring matter. The case is stated in the opinion.

Review case 5 1 the coca cola co v koke co of america

The Koke Company of America No.

Review case 5 1 the coca cola co v koke co of america

As respects this defense, the plaintiff's position must be judged by the facts as they were when the suit was begun, not by the facts of a different condition and an earlier time.

Plaintiff's beverage, widely sold under the name "Coca-Cola," with Page U. Held, that the continued use of the name with the picture was not a fraud depriving the plaintiff of the right to enjoin infringement and unfair competition in selling a like preparation under the name of "Koke," but that the injunction should not restrain use of the name "Dope," a featureless word not specifically suggestive of "Coca Cola" by similarity or in use, nor forbid manufacture and sale of the product, including the coloring matter.

The case is stated in the opinion. Supreme Court Coca-Cola Co. This is a bill in equity brought by the Coca-Cola Company to prevent the infringement of its trademark Coca-Cola and unfair competition with it in its business of making and selling the beverage for which the trademark is used.

The district court gave the plaintiff a decree.

Expert's Answer

This was reversed by the circuit court of appeals. Subsequently a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. Both the courts below agree that, subject to the one question to be considered, the plaintiff has a right to equitable relief. Whatever may have been its original weakness, the mark for years has acquired a secondary significance and has indicated the plaintiff's product alone.

It is found that defendant's mixture is made and sold in imitation of the plaintiff's, and that the word "Koke" was chosen for the purpose of reaping the benefit of the advertising done by the plaintiff and of selling the imitation as and for the plaintiff's goods. The only obstacle found by the circuit court of appeals in the way of continuing the injunction granted below was its opinion that the trademark, in itself, and the advertisements accompanying it made such fraudulent representations to the public that the plaintiff had lost its claim to any help from the court.

That is the question upon which the writ of certiorari was granted, and the main one that we shall discuss. Of course, a man is not to be protected in the use of a device the very purpose and effect of which is to swindle the public.

But the defects of a plaintiff do not offer a very broad ground for allowing another to swindle him. The defense relied on here should be scrutinized with a critical eye. The main point is this: The amount seems to have been very small, but it may have been enough to begin a bad habit, and after the Food and Drug Act of June 30,c.

Coca leaves still are used, to be sure, but after they have been subjected to a drastic process that removes from them every characteristic substance except a little tannin and still less chlorophyl.

The cola nut, at best, on its side furnishes but a small portion of the caffein, which now is the only element that has appreciable effect. That comes mainly from other sources. It is argued that the continued use of the name imports a representation that has ceased to be true, and that the representation is reinforced by a picture of coca leaves and cola nuts upon the label and by advertisements, which, however, were many years before this suit was brought, that the drink is an "ideal nerve tonic and stimulant," etc.

Review case 5 1 the coca cola co v koke co of america

The argument does not satisfy us. We are dealing here with a popular drink, not with a medicine, and although what has been said might suggest that its attraction lay in producing the expectation of a toxic effect, the facts point to a different conclusion.

U.S. Supreme Court

Sincethe sales have increased at a very great rate, corresponding to a like increase in advertising. The name now characterizes a beverage to be had at almost any soda fountain.

It means a single thing coming from a single source, and well known to the community. It hardly would be too much to say that the drink characterizes the name as much as the name the drink.

In other words, "Coca-Cola" probably means to most persons the plaintiff's familiar product to be had everywhere, rather than a compound of particular substances.In Case , The Coca-Cola Co.

v. The Koke Co. of America, when the Koke Company of America marketed its cola product under the name “Koke,” it infringed the Coca-Cola Company’s a.

copyright. b. Koke Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., F. Subsequently a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. Subsequently a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. U.S. Valparaiso Coca-Cola, a sales center of Coca-Cola Bottling Company UNITED, recently dedicated a new $5 million sales and distribution center.

The 24,sq.-ft. facility, which includes a distribution center, warehouse, fleet maintenance center and administrative offices, will serve. The Koke Co. of America Facts: The Coca-Cola Co.

wanted to prevent other companies from using the word Koke for their products. Issue: Whether the word Koke could be used by other products, especially when considering that a radio add would not display a spelling difference.

A jury's good sense and careful consideration of consequences is known as jurisprudence. False A judge's view of the law is of little importance in a common law legal system.

False Rules and regulations adopted by federal administrative agencies are compiled in the Code of Federal Regulations. True The only requirement of a valid . The Koke Co.

of America Facts: The Coca-Cola Co. wanted to prevent other companies from using the word Koke for their products. Issue: Whether the word Koke could be used by other products, especially when considering that a radio add would not display a spelling difference.

Case Brief The Coca Cola Co V Koke Of America