The Coca-Cola Company brought an action in a federal district court to enjoin other beverage companies from using the words Koke and Dope for their products. The defendants contended that the Coca-Cola trademark was a fraudulent representation and that Coca-Cola was therefore not entitled to any help from the courts. By use of the Coca- Cola name, the defendants alleged, the Coca-Cola Company represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from coca leaves). The district court granted the injunction, but the federal appellate court reversed. The Coca-Cola Company appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Did the marketing of products called Koke and Dope by the Koke Company of America and other firms constitute an unauthorized use of Coca-Cola’s trademark?
Issue: Did the marketing of products called Koke and Dope by the Koke Company of America and other firms constitute an unauthorized use of Coca-Cola’s trademark?
Decision: the answer is yes for koke but not for dope. The court enjoined that the competing companies from calling koke but not dope
Reason: the reason for such a decision by the court is that prior to 1900, the coca cola had a small content of cocaine but this ingredient had been deleted from its formula from 1906 at the latest & the coca cola company advertised to the public stating that its product doesn’t have the presence of cocaine. Coca cola is a widely popular drink to be had at any soda fountain. The public is considered to have good familiarity with the name coca cola, the retention of name of the beverage was not misleading. Coca cola probably means to most persons the plaintiff’s familiar product to be had everywhere rather than a compound of particular substances.
The name coke is considered to be common for the trademarked product coca cola that the defendants use of the term koke which is sounding similar have been disallowed. But the court had no reason to restrain the defendants from using the term dope however in their products.
The Coca-Cola Company brought an action in a federal district court to enjoin other beverage companies...
The differences & similarities between the federal & state court systems. 2. The structure of the Washington state court system; i.e. the trial court of general jurisdiction, the intermediate appellate court, the state supreme court. 3. Remember, Washington is in the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. 4. Under both the Washington state and federal court system, there is one appeal as of right. Appeals to the Washington Supreme Court(in the state system), or to the U.S. Supreme Court in...
Overton v. Todman & Co., CPAs Background and Facts: From 1999 through 2002, Todman & Company, CPAs, P.C., audited the financial statements of Direct Brokerage, Inc. (DBI), a broker-dealer in New York registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Each year, Todman issued an unqualified opinion that DBI’s financial statements were accurate. DBI filed its statements and Todman’s opinions with the SEC. Despite the certifications of accuracy, Todman made significant errors that concealed DBI’s largest liability—its payroll taxes—in the...
Case Study Analysis: Fred Stern & Company, Inc. (Knapp): In the business world of the Roaring Twenties, the schemes and scams of flimflam artists and confidence men were legendary. The absence of a strong regulatory system at the federal level to police the securities markets—the Securities and Exchange Commission was not established until 1934—aided, if not encouraged, financial frauds of all types. In all likelihood, the majority of individuals involved in business during the 1920s were scrupulously honest. Nevertheless, the...