The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-12-08
COCa-COLa Wins
Ean1OuSKOkeCaSe
drought Trademark Liti-
cation of Years Ended.
Stock Is Boosted.


Atlanta. Ga, Dec. s.-The decision OF
the United states supreme court at
Coca Cola company In the Injunction
proceedings instituted by II to protect
Its trademark and trade namo against
infringements created distinct feel
financial circles Tuesday. This was
measurably reflected in the strength OF
coca cola stock in the New York mar
lSet. where II IL listed In the exchange.
The litigation was the most impor-
tant In which the Coca-Col company
has ever been involved Its trademark
was seriously. jeopardized through an
adverse decision Of the United states
circuit court OF appeals for the Ninth
circuit. This opinion he'll. In effect,
that the Coca Cola company was not
! entitled to relief in court Of equity
business had been built up on decep-
tlon. in that the beverage had been adj
vertised as containing medicinal prop
critics, In word. the circuit court
| court with clean hands.
II the judgment OF the circuit court
| had been sustained by the supreme
court. the Coca-Cola company prob
| ably would have been confronted with
| all kinds Of competition, and scores Of
|
probably would have appeared on the
market.
The decision Of the supreme court,
| however projects the Coca Cola COM
pany against the possibility Of infringe.
ments and operates TO make valid and
| permanent it's exclusive and sole right
| to trade name and trademark which It
has established through many years OF
| enterprise and advertising.
History Of Case.
| The full opinion OF the supreme court
has not been received in Atlanta, but
| counsel for the company, familiar with
tho case from It's inception, explained
inally in 1915 against the Koke Com
pnny OF America, the Southern Koke
company. the Koke company and sevI
efal other parties
The Coca Cola company alleged that
one J. c. Mayneld clal to know
pany asserted that 1t and its predeces-
sors had used the name coca-cola con-
tinuously and without interruption
since 1886, and that the defendants, to-
gether with Mayheld. were attempting
to OBJ tain It's business by unfair
methods.
These unfair methods, according TO
tho Coca Cola company, involved May
fields claim to knowledge of the secret
formula of the drink; also the fact that
the defendants had made and were us
ing an exact copy Of the label and de;
signs OF the Coca Cola company and
that tho words "koke" and dope
were used as the names of the prod
ucts OF the defendants. thus attempt
ing to profit by securing tho trade OF
tho Coca-Col company. .
Two OF the cases were tried in, the
United States district court at Pres
colt. Ariz., and the other at Now Or
leans. In each OF these trials the con-
tentons OF the Coca-Coa company
were sustained. the courts UNFOLDING
the validity OF the coca cola trademark
, and trade name and holding that the
defendants were guilty OF unfair com
petition and infringement OF the trade
mark, and that Mayfield had not OBJ
tained the secret formula OF coca-cola
The Arizona case was appealed by
circuit court OF appeals for the Ninth
circuit, and the court, through Judge
Ross, held tina tho defendants had
been guilty Of unfair methods Of COM
petition, but that the Coca Cola COM
pany could not pursue Its right In
court OF equity because Of unclear
hands, based upon the fact that In the
beginning coca cola had a slight trace
OF cocaine therein; that 1t was adver'
tlsed as q medicine. and that the. cal
entirely, from sources other than the
cola nuts.
| Appellate Court Reversed. ....
The Coca Cola company obtained n
writ OF certlorari 70 the supreme court
OF the United States, which was
granted. and the cnse was argued on
Nov. 10 and 10. 1920 The Roke com
pany, through It's attorneys, pressed
the decision OF the circuit court of ap-
peals. and the invalidity Of the trade
mark OF the Coca Cola company. due ia
the fact that 1t did not contain coca
loaves and cola nuts, and therefore
that II WAS false representation and
deceived the public.
In tho decision rendered by the su
prcme court OF the United states on
Monday. the decision OF the circuit
court OF appeals was reversed and the
upheld, and the defendant companies
(the Koke company and It's interests>
were held guilty Of unfair competition.
and the district court was sustained
in its finding that Mayfeld did not
know. nor did he own the formula for
coca cola, and further that they had
used fraudulent means In competing
with the Coca Cola company In selling
their goods for the goods of the Coca
Cola company and further ,,., that the
tho trademark coca cola and the use OF
It was violation OF the rights OF the
Coca Cola company,
The Coca-Cola company itself dis.
| ClAllneu any property TlkHt ~ Nne WV
dope" and Its only contention therein
was that no one had the right 70 use
this name as means OF fraud and de-
i.coptlon; that In to say, no one had the
eight 10 sell goods under that name
whom the product of the Coca-Cola
company was desired.
Tho late Augustine Littleton, OF
Chattanooga, was attorney for the de-
PENDANTS In the ''koke" case, and APP
peared In courts all over the country
tightnR for its right to use Of the
words and labels, UP TO his death. After
Mr.. Littleton's death, his partners, Lit
Teton 4 Elttleton, continued the fight
for this right, which was not finally
settled until tho supreme court verdict
II was case requiring a tremendous
amount OF work, and attracted wide
attention over the country, as II in
voved n basic principle OF trademark
that was OF interest to large number
OF firms.