Description
Answer the question in five paragraphs, this is for a business law class. I request if I can please get the first 2 paragraphs by Wednesday night.
Case 8.1: The Coca-Cola Co. v. The Koke Co. of America
The Coca-Cola Co. sought to enjoin The Koke Co. of America and other beverage companies from, among other things, using the word Koke for their products. Koke contended that the Coca-Cola trademark was a fraudulent representation and that Coca-Cola was thus not entitled to an injunction.
Koke alleged that Coca-Cola, by its use of the Coca-Cola name, represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from coca leaves). The court granted the injunction against Koke, but an appellate court reversed. Coca-Cola appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court acknowledged that before 1900 Coca-Cola’s good will was enhanced by the presence of a small amount of cocaine, but that the cocaine had long been eliminated from the drink. The Court underscored that Coca-Cola was not “a medicine” and that its attraction did not lay in producing “a toxic effect.” Since 1900 sales had increased.
The name had come to characterize a well known beverage to be had almost anywhere “rather than a compound of particular substances.” The Court noted that before this suit was brought Coca-Cola had advertised that the public would not find cocaine in Coca-Cola. “[I]t would be going too far to deny the plaintiff relief against a palpable fraud because possibly here and there an ignorant person might call for the drink with the hope for incipient cocaine intoxication.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Notes and Questions
Until 1903, the amount of active cocaine in each bottle of Coke was equivalent to one “line” of cocaine, and, “many years before this suit was brought,” as the Supreme Court put it, Coca-Cola was advertised as an “ideal nerve tonic and stimulant.” In the first part of this century, the word Dope was understood to mean Coke. If a customer asked for a “Dope,” he or she was given a Coke. Koke attempted to associate the word with its product, and Coca-Cola also sought to stop this, arguing that people would be confused if they ordered a Dope, expecting a Coke, and got something else. The Supreme Court refused relief, concluding that Dope was not a sufficiently descriptive term. The Court found that the word had no clear connection to Coke.
The name “Coke” was not registered as a trademark until 1945.
What, if any, harm could the Coca-Cola Company have suffered as a result of the Koke Company’s use of the Name “Koke” to market its products?
Suppose that the trial court had found that 25 percent of all adult Coca-Cola drinkers believed that Coca-Cola contained cocaine, despite the fact that cocaine was not listed among the soft drink’s ingredients. In that situation, should the court deny Coca-Cola’s request for an injunction against Koke?
Can you think of other brands with almost the same name where confusion can arise?
At one point there were three cigars carrying the “Cohiba” name, how was that possible?