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? It may be a good idea to read the entire case, via the internet.Do not plagiarized

Coca-cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America Supreme Court of the United States, 254 U.S. 143, 41 S.Ct. 113, 65 LEd, 189 (1920). FACTS The Coca-cola Company brought an action in a its drink. Coca-cola was a widely popular drink "to be had federal district court to enjoin other beverage companies at almost any soda fountain." Because of the public's wide- from using the words Koke and Dope for their products. The spread familiarity with Coco-Cola, the retention of the name defendants contended that the Coca-cola trademark was a of the beverage (referring to coca leaves and kola nuts) was fraudulent representation and that Coca-cola was therefore not misleading: "Coca-Cola probably means to most persons not entitled to any help from the courts. By use of the Coca- the plaintiff's familiar product to be had everywhere rather Cola name, the defendants alleged, the Coca-cola Com- than a compound of particular substances." The name "Coke" pany represented that the beverage contained cocaine (from was found to be so common a term for the trademarked prod coca leaves). The district court granted the injunction, but uct Coca-Cola that the defendants' use of the similar-sounding the federal appellate court reversed. The Coca-cola Com- "Koke" as a name for their beverages was disallowed. The pany appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Court could find no reason to restrain the defendants from using the name "Dope," however. ISSUE Did the marketing of products called Koke and Dope by the Koke Company of America and other firms constitute an WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that Coca- unauthorized use of Coca-Cola's trademark? Cola had been trying to make the public believe that its product contained cocaine. Would the result in the case likely have DECISION Yes for Koke, but no for Dope. The Court enjoined been different? Explain your answer. (prevented) the competing beverage companies from calling their products Koke but did not prevent them from calling their IMPACT OF THIS CASE ON TODAY'S LAW In this early case, products Dope. the United States Supreme Court made it clear that trademarks and trade names (and nicknames for those marks and names, REASON The Court noted that, to be sure, prior to 1900 such as the nickname "Coke" for "Coca-Cola") that are in com- the Coca-cola beverage had contained a small amount of mon use receive protection under the common law. This hold- cocaine, but this ingredient had been deleted from the for- ing is significant historically because it is the predecessor to mula by 1906 at the latest, and the Coca-cola Company the federal statute later passed to protect trademark rights (the had advertised to the public that no cocaine was present in Lanham Act of 1946, to be discussed below)