The case of Coca Cola Co. v. Koke Company of America is one that reviews the issue of protection of trademarks. Read the analysis of this case and determine, under the circumstances, if was necessary to protect Coca Cola in this instance. NOTE THE DATE WHEN THIS RULING WAS RENDERED. Would the ruling be the same today? Why? Read the "What if the Facts Were Different" portion of the brief. How would you reply? 

you can google the case and use any source. too big to copy & paste here.

 

Solution:

The Coca-Cola Co. v. The Koke Co. of America

COMPANY PROFILE

 John Pemberton, an Atlanta pharmacist, invented a caramel-colored, carbonated soft drink in 1886. His bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, named the beverage Coca-Cola after two of the ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. Asa Candler bought the Coca-Cola Company (www.coca-colacompany.com) in 1891, and within seven years, he had made the soft drink available throughout the United States, as well as in parts of Canada and Mexico. Candler continued to sell Coke aggressively and to open up new markets, reaching Europe before 1910. In doing so, however, he attracted numerous competitors, some of which tried to capitalize directly on the Coke name.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS:

 The Coca-Cola Company sought to enjoin (prevent) the Koke Company of America and other beverage companies from, among other things, using the word Koke for their products. The Koke Company of America and other beverage companies contended that the Coca- Cola trademark was a fraudulent representation and that Coca-Cola was therefore not entitled to any help from the courts. The Koke Company and the other defendants alleged that the Coca-Cola Company, by its use of the Coca-Cola name, represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from coca leaves), which it no longer did. The trial court granted the injunction against the Koke Company, but the appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling. Coca-Cola then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT

Before 1900 the beginning of [Coca-Cola's] good will was more or less helped by the presence of cocaine, a drug that, like alcohol or caffeine or opium, may be described as a deadly poison or as a valuable [pharmaceutical item, depending on the speaker's purposes]. The amount seems to have been very small,a but it may have been enough to begin a bad habit and after the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, if not earlier, long before this suit was brought, it was eliminated from the plaintiff's compound.

Since 1900 the 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. Before this suit was brought the plaintiff had advertised to the public that it must not expect and would not find cocaine, and had eliminated everything tending to suggest cocaine effects except the name and the picture of [coca] leaves and nuts, which probably conveyed little or nothing to most who saw it. It appears to us that it would be going too far to deny the plaintiff relief against a palpable [readily evident] fraud because possibly here and there an ignorant person might call for the drink with the hope for incipient cocaine intoxication. 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. [Emphasis added.]

DECISION AND REMEDY

The district court's injunction was allowed to stand. The competing beverage companies were enjoined from calling their products Koke.

IMPACT OF THIS CASE ON TODAY 'S LAW

In this early case, the United States Supreme Court made it clear that trademarks and trade names (and nicknames for those marks and names, such as the nickname "Coke" for "Coca-Cola") that are in common use receive protection under the common law. This holding is significant historically because it is the predecessor to the federal statute later passed to protect trademark rights—the Lan ham Act of 1946, to be discussed next. In many ways, this act represented a codification of common law principles governing trademarks.

Trademark:

A trademark is a brand or logo that established the identity of the owner and its reputation for providing specific products and/or services. The Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 amended the Lan ham Act to bring a federal cause of action in federal court for marks that could dilute or confuse others as to your brand.

The Act provides relief for the owner of a famous mark if another's commercial use of that mark begins after the first mark has become well-known. The subsequent use causes erosion or dilution of its characteristic quality. Trademark erosion occurs when:

1. the mark is well-known,

2. the subsequent user of the mark has used it commercially,

3. the subsequent user used the mark after it became famous, and

4. using the mark by the subsequent user caused dilution.

Legal Reasoning:

In The Coca-Cola Co. (Coca-Cola) v. The Koke Co. of America (Koke), 254 U.S. 143, 41 S.Ct. 113, 65 L.Ed. 189 (1920), the district court found in favor of Coca-Cola and issued an injunctive ban on Koke from calling themselves Koke because of trademark dilution. The appellate court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling and vacated the appellate court's decision.

Step-by-step explanation

Solution:

The Coca-Cola Co. v. The Koke Co. of America

COMPANY PROFILE

 John Pemberton, an Atlanta pharmacist, invented a caramel-colored, carbonated soft drink in 1886. His bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, named the beverage Coca-Cola after two of the ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. Asa Candler bought the Coca-Cola Company (www.coca-colacompany.com) in 1891, and within seven years, he had made the soft drink available throughout the United States, as well as in parts of Canada and Mexico. Candler continued to sell Coke aggressively and to open up new markets, reaching Europe before 1910. In doing so, however, he attracted numerous competitors, some of which tried to capitalize directly on the Coke name.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS:

 The Coca-Cola Company sought to enjoin (prevent) the Koke Company of America and other beverage companies from, among other things, using the word Koke for their products. The Koke Company of America and other beverage companies contended that the Coca- Cola trademark was a fraudulent representation and that Coca-Cola was therefore not entitled to any help from the courts. The Koke Company and the other defendants alleged that the Coca-Cola Company, by its use of the Coca-Cola name, represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from coca leaves), which it no longer did. The trial court granted the injunction against the Koke Company, but the appellate court reversed the lower court's ruling. Coca-Cola then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT

Before 1900 the beginning of [Coca-Cola's] good will was more or less helped by the presence of cocaine, a drug that, like alcohol or caffeine or opium, may be described as a deadly poison or as a valuable [pharmaceutical item, depending on the speaker's purposes]. The amount seems to have been very small,a but it may have been enough to begin a bad habit and after the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, if not earlier, long before this suit was brought, it was eliminated from the plaintiff's compound.

Since 1900 the 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. Before this suit was brought the plaintiff had advertised to the public that it must not expect and would not find cocaine, and had eliminated everything tending to suggest cocaine effects except the name and the picture of [coca] leaves and nuts, which probably conveyed little or nothing to most who saw it. It appears to us that it would be going too far to deny the plaintiff relief against a palpable [readily evident] fraud because possibly here and there an ignorant person might call for the drink with the hope for incipient cocaine intoxication. 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. [Emphasis added.]

DECISION AND REMEDY

The district court's injunction was allowed to stand. The competing beverage companies were enjoined from calling their products Koke.

IMPACT OF THIS CASE ON TODAY 'S LAW

In this early case, the United States Supreme Court made it clear that trademarks and trade names (and nicknames for those marks and names, such as the nickname "Coke" for "Coca-Cola") that are in common use receive protection under the common law. This holding is significant historically because it is the predecessor to the federal statute later passed to protect trademark rights—the Lan ham Act of 1946, to be discussed next. In many ways, this act represented a codification of common law principles governing trademarks.

Trademark:

A trademark is a brand or logo that established the identity of the owner and its reputation for providing specific products and/or services. The Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 amended the Lan ham Act to bring a federal cause of action in federal court for marks that could dilute or confuse others as to your brand.

The Act provides relief for the owner of a famous mark if another's commercial use of that mark begins after the first mark has become well-known. The subsequent use causes erosion or dilution of its characteristic quality. Trademark erosion occurs when:

1. the mark is well-known,

2. the subsequent user of the mark has used it commercially,

3. the subsequent user used the mark after it became famous, and

4. using the mark by the subsequent user caused dilution.

Legal Reasoning:

In The Coca-Cola Co. (Coca-Cola) v. The Koke Co. of America (Koke), 254 U.S. 143, 41 S.Ct. 113, 65 L.Ed. 189 (1920), the district court found in favor of Coca-Cola and issued an injunctive ban on Koke from calling themselves Koke because of trademark dilution. The appellate court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling and vacated the appellate court's decision.