Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America
1920 U.S. LEXIS 1177, 41 S. Ct. 113, 254 U.S. 143 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trademark that has acquired a 'secondary meaning'—where the public primarily associates the name with the product's source rather than its ingredients—does not lose its legal protection against infringement, even if the name is no longer a literal or accurate description of the product's contents.
Facts:
- The Coca-Cola Company's predecessors used the trademark 'Coca-Cola' for a beverage.
- Originally, the beverage contained a small amount of cocaine derived from coca leaves and caffeine from cola nuts.
- Prior to 1906, and long before this lawsuit, The Coca-Cola Company eliminated cocaine from its product's formula.
- The company continued to use coca leaves, but only after a process that removed all active cocaine alkaloids.
- The caffeine in the modern formula was primarily sourced from other ingredients, with cola nuts contributing very little.
- The Koke Co. of America began manufacturing and selling an imitation beverage under the name 'Koke'.
- Koke Co. chose its name to intentionally trade on the goodwill and advertising of The Coca-Cola Company and to pass off its product as Coca-Cola's.
Procedural Posture:
- The Coca-Cola Company sued Koke Co. of America in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- The District Court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, The Coca-Cola Company.
- The defendant, Koke Co. of America, appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decree, holding that Coca-Cola's trademark was deceptive.
- The plaintiff, The Coca-Cola Company, then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company's trademark, which originally derived its name from ingredients that have since been removed or significantly altered, become deceptive and thus lose its legal protection against infringement, particularly when the mark has acquired a secondary meaning identifying the product itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, the trademark does not lose its legal protection. A trademark is not considered deceptive simply because its name no longer reflects its original ingredients, especially when the name has acquired a secondary meaning that identifies the product's source for the public. The court reasoned that the name 'Coca-Cola' had, over many years of use and advertising, come to mean a single, familiar product from a single source, rather than a compound of specific substances. The public no longer associated the name with cocaine, and the company had even advertised its absence. The court must judge the trademark's validity based on the facts as they exist at the time of the lawsuit, not on a historical condition. To deny relief against a clear fraud (Koke Co.'s imitation) because a few ignorant individuals might still hope for a drug effect would be unjust. However, the Court did modify the lower court's decree, finding that Coca-Cola could not claim an exclusive right to prevent others from using the generic slang term 'Dope'.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in trademark law, cementing the doctrine of 'secondary meaning.' It establishes that a trademark's primary function is to identify the source of a product, and its meaning can evolve beyond its literal or descriptive origins. This precedent protects the immense goodwill and investment companies build in their brands, allowing them to adapt product formulas without forfeiting their valuable trademark rights. The ruling ensures that trademark protection focuses on the mark's actual meaning to the consuming public at the time of the dispute, rather than on its historical etymology.
