The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-03-06
FOLK
WIN INJUNCTION
Atlanta Company Secures Order
Restraining Sale OF Richmond
Made Product.
FIGHT OVER TRADEMARK
OVER TRADE MARK
Judge Waddill Holds That
Georgia Company Has Valid
Statutory Name.

On the ground that the vending OF
the Virginia syrup Cpmpanys Ores
cent Coon Cola" constitutes an in
fringement OF the trade mark held
by the Coca Cola Company, OF At
lanta. Judge Edmund Waddill. Jr.. OF
the United States District Court. yes
tertay granted the Georgia company's
prayer for n perpetual injunction. en-
joining the Richmond concern from
marketing its product under the pres
emf name
The Virginia syrup Company. moor
porated under the laws of this state.
with Offices in this city. placed on the
market in july. 1911, soft drink
under the name OF Crescent Coca
Cola" The Coca Cola Company, or
Atlanta. manufacturers OF a well
known fountain drink bearing its
name on December II, 1911, filed bill
OF complaint In the United states Dis
trict Court in Richmond setting forth
that the marketing OF tho new drink
was an infringement OF its trade mark
and was calculated to injure It's bus
mess
The Atlanta company claimed that
the name Coca Cola" as applied to
fountain drink was secured to it by
q copyright in the Patent Office, grant
ed on January 81, 1898. Previous to
that time. IL WAS stated. the product
was copyrighted under the name
Coca Cola Syrup and Extract" The
last named esiGnation was patented
III 1856.
spent S6.00O.0OO Name.
Lawyers for both sizes argued the
case before Judge Waddin last De
cembcr. Inc complainants, besides al
lcsing INFRINGEMENT, claimed heavy
DAMAGES on the ground that "Crcsco II,
Coca Cola resembling their own pro
duct in appearance color. and con-
sistencv. had been frequently subsu-
tuted for ii at sodn fountains = hen
patrons called for Coca Cola. letters
were offered in evidence 10y the Atlanta
company IN support OF this ailcga-
ton.
The application for an injunction set
forth further that the CoCa-Cola Com
pauy. OF Atlanta. has spent moro than
sG,000,0O0 In advertising its product
and establishing il as II staple article
of commerce. charging that the Vend-
ing of the Richmond product under
n similar game was injurinG the repu-
tation of its own well known COM
pound.
on these and other grounds the
Coca Cola Company. OF Atlanta. Asa
6. Gambler, president, asked that the
Virginia syrup Company be perpetual
~ restrained from making or selling
its product and using In any form
whatsoever the name Coca-Cola as ap-
piled 10 its preparation.
Attacks Copyright
The brief for the dcfendan com
rany denied infringement Of trade
mark, holding that the Atlanta com
runy has no Legal right 10 the patent
IT claims. The fact that the nam,
oca-Cola' was not registered unit
7S9S--sevcn years after tho produce
which IL dcSignates was known as
COCA Cola syrup ana Extract" tn,
defendant aYerred. !uvalidated ta'
copyright
In support Of this position tho dc.
PENDANT quoted from section 1856 oi
tho Revised Statutes or the Unite,
States. which lays down as ono of tn,
conditions Of obtaining a patent thai
tho compound must not have been III
public use OF on sale in this country
FOR more than two years prior 10 tn,
Ming OF application The failure OIL
the part OF the Atlanta company Il
Observe this condition. it was contend.
ed operated as a legal abandonment
10 its right to's monapoly Of the com
pound. = -
Claims Name IL Generic.
TIC Virginia company denied tn,
charge that its product was peini
marketed with the intention Of de