USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
United States Supreme Court
COCA-COLA CO. v. KOKE CO. OF AMERICA, (1920)
No. 101
Argued: Decided: December 6, 1920
[254 U.S. 143, 144] Messrs. Frederick W. Lehmann, of St. Louis, Mo., Frank F. Reed and Edward S. Rogers, both of Chicago, Ill., and Harold Hirsch, of Atlanta, Ga ., for petitioner.
Messrs. Richard E. Sloan, of Phoenix, Ariz., and Joseph W. Bailey, of Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity brought by the Coca-Cola Company to prevent the infringement of its trade-mark Coca-Cola and unfair competition with it in its business of making and selling the beverage for which the trade- mark is used. The District Court gave the plaintiff a decree. 235 Fed. 408. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Koke Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 255 Fed. 894, 167 C. C. A. 214. Subsequently a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
250 U.S. 637
, 39 Sup. Ct. 493. [254 U.S. 143, 145] It appears that after the plaintiff’s predecessors in title had used the mark for some years it was registered under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 502), and again under the Act of February 20, 1905, c. 592, 33 Stat. 724 (Comp. St. 9485 et seq.). Both the Courts below agree that subject to the one question to be considered the plaintiff has a right to equitable relief. Whatever may have been its original weakness, the mark for years has acquired a secondary significance and has indicated the plaintiff’s product alone. It is found that defendant’s mixture is made and sold in imitation of the plaintiff’s and that the word ‘Koke’ was chosen for the purpose of reaping the benefit of the advertising done by the plaintiff and of selling the imitation as and for the plaintiff’s goods. The only obstacle found by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the way of continuing the injunction granted below was its opinion that the trade- mark in itself and the advertisements accompanying it made such fraudulent representations to the public that the plaintiff had lost its claim to any help from the Court. That is the question upon which the writ of certiorari was granted and the main one that we shall discuss.
Of course a man is not to be protected in the use of a device the very purpose and effect of which is to swindle the public. But the defects of a plaintiff do not offer a very broad ground for allowing another to swindle him. The defence relied on here should be scrutinized with a critical eye. The main point is this: Before 1900 the beginning of the good will was more or less helped by the presence of cocaine, a drug that, like alcohol of caffein or opium, may be described as a deadly poison or as a valuable item of the pharmacopoeia according to the rhetorical purposes in view. The amount seems to have been very small, but it may have been enough to begin a bad habit and after the Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915 (Comp. St. 8717-8728), if not earlier, long before this [254 U.S. 143, 146] suit was brought, it was eliminated from the plaintiff’s compound. Coca leaves still are used, to be sure, but after they have been subjected to a drastic process that removes from them every characteristic substance except a little tannin and still less chlorophyl. The cola nut, at best, on its side furnishes but a small portion of the caffein, which now is the only element that has appreciable effect. That comes mainly from other sources. It is argued that the continued use of the name imports a representation that has ceased to be true and that the representation is reinforced by a picture of coca leaves and cola nuts upon the label and by advertisements, which however were many years before this suit was brought, that the drink is an ‘ideal nerve tonic and stimulant,’ etc., and that thus the very thing sought to be protected is used as a fraud.
The agrument does not satisfy us. We are dealing here with a popular drink not with a medicine, and although what has been said might suggest that its attraction lay in producing the expectation of a toxic effect the facts point to a different conclusion. Since 1900 the sales have increased at a very great rate corresponding to a like increase in advertising. The name now characterizes a beverage to be had at almost any soda fountain. It means a single thing coming from a single source, and well known to the community. It hardly would be too much to say that the drink characterizes the name as much as the name the drink. In other words ‘Coca-Cola’ probably means to most persons the plaintiff’s familiar product to be had everywhere rather than a compound of particular substances. Although the fact did not appear in United States v. Coca-Cola Co.,
241 U.S. 265, 289
, 36 S. Sup. Ct. 573, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 487, we see no reason to doubt that, as we have said, it has acquired a secondary meaning in which perhaps the product is more emphasized than the producer but to which the producer is entitled. The coca leaves and whatever of cola nut is [254 U.S. 143, 147] employed may be used to justify the continuance of the name or they may affect the flavor as the plaintiff contends, but before this suit was brought the plaintiff had advertised to the public that it must not expect and would not find cocaine, and had eliminated everything tending to suggest cocaine effects except the name and the picture of the leaves and nuts, which probably conveyed little or nothing to most who saw it. It appears to us that it would be going too far to deny the plaintiff relief against a palpable fraud because possibly here and there an ignorant person might call for the drink with the hope for incipient cocaine intoxication. The plaintiff’s position must be judged by the facts as they were when the suit was begun, not by the facts of a different condition and an earlier time.
The decree of the District Court restrains the defendant from using the word ‘Dope.’ The plaintiff illustrated in a very striking way the fact that the word is one of the most featureless known even to the language of those who are incapable of discriminating speech. In some places it would be used to call for Coca-Cola. It equally would have been used to call for anything else having about it a faint aureole of poison. It does not suggest Coca-Cola by similarity and whatever objections there may be to its use, objections which the plaintiff equally makes to its application to Coca-Cola, we see no ground on which the plaintiff can claim a personal right to exclude the defendant from using it.
The product including the coloring matter is free to all who can make it if no extrinsic deceiving element is present. The injunction should be modified also in this respect.
Decree reversed.
Decree of District Court modified and affirmed.
Ho w t o B r i e f C a s e s
To fully understand the law with respect to business, you need to be able to read and understand court
decisions. To make this task easier, you can use a method of case analysis that is called briefing. There
is a fairly standard procedure that you can follow when you “brief” any court case. You must first read
the case opinion carefully. When you feel you understand the case, you can prepare a brief of it.
Although the format of the brief may vary, typically it will present the essentials of the case under
headings such as those listed below.
1 Citation. Give the full citation for the case, including the name of the case, the date it was
decided, and the court that decided it.
2 Facts. Briefly indicate (a) the reasons for the lawsuit; (b) the identity and arguments of the
plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), respectively; and (c) the lower court’s decision—if appropriate.
3 Issue. Concisely phrase, in the form of a question, the essential issue before the court. (If more
than one issue is involved, you may have two—or even more—questions here.)
4 Decision. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the court’s answer to the question (or
questions) in the Issue section above.
5 Reason. Summarize as briefly as possible the reasons given by the court for its decision (or
decisions) and the case or statutory law relied on by the court in arriving at its decision.
A n E x a m p l e o f a B r i e f S a m p l e C o u r t C a s e
As an example of the format used in briefing cases, we present here a briefed version of the sample
court case that was presented in Exhibit 1A–3 on page 32.
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, 2008.
512 F.3d 582.
FACTS The Seattle Center is an entertainment “zone” in downtown Seattle, Washington, that
attracts nearly ten million tourists each year. The center encompasses theaters, arenas, museums,
exhibition halls, conference rooms, outdoor stadiums, and restaurants, and features street perfor-
mers. Under the authority of the city, the center’s director issued rules in 2002 to address safety con-
cerns and other matters. Among other things, street performers were required to obtain permits and
wear badges. After members of the public filed numerous complaints of threatening behavior by
street performer and balloon artist Michael Berger, Seattle Center staff cited Berger for several rules
violations. He filed a suit in a federal district court against the city and others, alleging, in part, that
the rules violated his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
court issued a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. The city appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
ISSUE Did the rules issued by the Seattle Center under the city’s authority meet the require-
ments for valid restrictions on speech under the First Amendment?
DECISION Yes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the
lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings. “Such content neutral and narrowly tai-
lored rules * * * must be upheld.”
A–1
REASON The court concluded first that the rules requiring permits and badges were “content
neutral.” Time, place, and manner restrictions do not violate the First Amendment if they burden
all expression equally and do not allow officials to treat different messages differently. In this case,
the rules met this test and thus did not discriminate based on content. The court also concluded
that the rules were “narrowly tailored” to “promote a substantial government interest that would be
achieved less effectively” otherwise. With the rules, the city was trying to “reduce territorial disputes
among performers, deter patron harassment, and facilitate the identification and apprehension of
offending performers.” This was pursuant to the valid governmental objective of protecting the
safety and convenience of the other performers and the public generally. The public’s complaints
about Berger and others showed that unregulated street performances posed a threat to these inter-
ests. The court was “satisfied that the city’s permit scheme was designed to further valid governmen-
tal objectives.”
R e v i e w o f S a m p l e C o u r t C a s e
Here, we provide a review of the briefed version to indicate the kind of information that is contained
in each section.
CITATION The name of the case is Berger v. City of Seattle. Berger is the plaintiff; the City of
Seattle is the defendant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided this case in 2008.
The citation states that this case can be found in volume 512 of the Federal Reporter, Third Series,
on page 582.
FACTS The Facts section identifies the plaintiff and the defendant, describes the events leading
up to this suit, the allegations made by the plaintiff in the initial suit, and (because this case is an
appellate court decision) the lower court’s ruling and the party appealing. The party appealing’s
argument on appeal is also sometimes included here.
ISSUE The Issue section presents the central issue (or issues) decided by the court. In this case,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether certain rules imposed on street
performers by local government authorities satisfied the requirements for valid restrictions on
speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
DECISION The Decision section includes the court’s decision on the issues before it. The deci-
sion reflects the opinion of the judge or justice hearing the case. Decisions by appellate courts are
frequently phrased in reference to the lower court’s decision. In other words, the appellate court
may “affirm” the lower court’s ruling or “reverse” it. Here, the court determined that Seattle’s rules
were “content neutral” and “narrowly tailored” to “promote a substantial government interest that
would otherwise be achieved less effectively.” The court found in favor of the city and reversed the
lower court’s ruling in the plaintiff’s (Berger’s) favor.
REASON The Reason section includes references to the relevant laws and legal principles that
the court applied in coming to its conclusion in the case. The relevant law in the Berger case
included the requirements under the First Amendment for evaluating the purpose and effect of gov-
ernment regulation with respect to expression. This section also explains the court’s application of
the law to the facts in this case.
A n a l y z i n g C a s e P r o b l e m s
In addition to learning how to brief cases, students of business law and the legal environment also
find it helpful to know how to analyze case problems. Part of the study of business law and the legal
environment usually involves analyzing case problems, such as those included in this text at the end
of each chapter.
For each case problem in this book, we provide the relevant background and facts of the lawsuit
and the issue before the court. When you are assigned one of these problems, your job will be to
determine how the court should decide the issue, and why. In other words, you will need to engage
HOW TO BRIEF CASES
AND ANALYZE CASE PROBLEMS
APPENDIX AA–2
in legal analysis and reasoning. Here, we offer some suggestions on how to make this task less daunt-
ing. We begin by presenting a sample problem:
While Janet Lawson, a famous pianist, was shopping in Quality Market, she slipped and fell on
a wet floor in one of the aisles. The floor had recently been mopped by one of the store’s employ-
ees, but there were no signs warning customers that the floor in that area was wet. As a result of
the fall, Lawson injured her right arm and was unable to perform piano concerts for the next six
months. Had she been able to perform the scheduled concerts, she would have earned approx-
imately $60,000 over that period of time. Lawson sued Quality Market for this amount, plus
another $10,000 in medical expenses. She claimed that the store’s failure to warn customers of
the wet floor constituted negligence and therefore the market was liable for her injuries. Will
the court agree with Lawson? Discuss.
U n d e r s t a n d t h e F a c t s
This may sound obvious, but before you can analyze or apply the relevant law to a specific set of
facts, you must clearly understand those facts. In other words, you should read through the case
problem carefully—more than once, if necessary—to make sure you understand the identity of the
plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the case and the progression of events that led to the lawsuit.
In the sample case problem just given, the identity of the parties is fairly obvious. Janet Lawson
is the one bringing the suit; therefore, she is the plaintiff. Quality Market, against whom she is
bringing the suit, is the defendant. Some of the case problems you may work on have multiple
plaintiffs or defendants. Often, it is helpful to use abbreviations for the parties. To indicate a refer-
ence to a plaintiff, for example, the pi symbol—p—is often used, and a defendant is denoted by a
delta—D—a triangle.
The events leading to the lawsuit are also fairly straightforward. Lawson slipped and fell on a wet
floor, and she contends that Quality Market should be liable for her injuries because it was negli-
gent in not posting a sign warning customers of the wet floor.
When you are working on case problems, realize that the facts should be accepted as they are
given. For example, in our sample problem, it should be accepted that the floor was wet and that
there was no sign. In other words, avoid making conjectures, such as “Maybe the floor wasn’t too
wet,” or “Maybe an employee was getting a sign to put up,” or “Maybe someone stole the sign.”
Questioning the facts as they are presented only adds confusion to your analysis.
L e g a l A n a l y s i s a n d R e a s o n i n g
Once you understand the facts given in the case problem, you can begin to analyze the case. Recall
from Chapter 1 that the IRAC method is a helpful tool to use in the legal analysis and reasoning
process. IRAC is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Applying this method to our
sample problem would involve the following steps:
1 First, you need to decide what legal issue is involved in the case. In our sample case, the basic
issue is whether Quality Market’s failure to warn customers of the wet floor constituted
negligence. As discussed in Chapter 12, negligence is a tort—a civil wrong. In a tort lawsuit, the
plaintiff seeks to be compensated for another’s wrongful act. A defendant will be deemed
negligent if he or she breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff and the breach of that duty
caused the plaintiff to suffer harm.
2 Once you have identified the issue, the next step is to determine what rule of law applies to the
issue. To make this determination, you will want to review carefully the text of the chapter in
which the relevant rule of law for the problem appears. Our sample case problem involves the
tort of negligence, which is covered in Chapter 4. The applicable rule of law is the tort law
principle that business owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their customers
(business invitees). Reasonable care, in this context, includes either removing—or warning
customers of—foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or should have known. Business
owners need not warn customers of “open and obvious” risks, however. If a business owner
breaches this duty of care (fails to exercise the appropriate degree of care toward customers), and
the breach of duty causes a customer to be injured, the business owner will be liable to the
customer for the customer’s injuries.
HOW TO BRIEF CASES
AND ANALYZE CASE PROBLEMS
APPENDIX A3
3 The next—and usually the most difficult—step in analyzing case problems is the application of
the relevant rule of law to the specific facts of the case you are studying. In our sample problem,
applying the tort law principle just discussed presents few difficulties. An employee of the store
had mopped the floor in the aisle where Lawson slipped and fell, but no sign was present
indicating that the floor was wet. That a customer might fall on a wet floor is clearly a foreseeable
risk. Therefore, the failure to warn customers about the wet floor was a breach of the duty of care
owed by the business owner to the store’s customers.
4 Once you have completed Step 3 in the IRAC method, you should be ready to draw your
conclusion. In our sample problem, Quality Market is liable to Lawson for her injuries, because
the market’s breach of its duty of care caused Lawson’s injuries.
The fact patterns in the case problems presented in this text are not always as simple as those pre-
sented in our sample problem. Often, for example, a case has more than one plaintiff or defendant.
A case may also involve more than one issue and have more than one applicable rule of law.
Furthermore, in some case problems the facts may indicate that the general rule of law should not
apply. For example, suppose that a store employee advised Lawson not to walk on the floor in the
aisle because it was wet, but Lawson decided to walk on it anyway. This fact could alter the outcome
of the case because the store could then raise the defense of assumption of risk (see Chapter 4).
Nonetheless, a careful review of the chapter should always provide you with the knowledge you
need to analyze the problem thoroughly and arrive at accurate conclusions.
HOW TO BRIEF CASES
AND ANALYZE CASE PROBLEMS
APPENDIX AA–4
