Business Law Assignment Competition by Infringing Its Trade-Mark

Question:-

Is the term ‘Coca Cola’ a descriptive term having secondary meaning?

Is the City of Court of Appeals justified in reversing the decree granted by District Court?

Answer:-

The Coca-Cola Company filed a bill in equity before the District Court to prevent defendant from continuing unfair competition by infringing its trade-mark ‘Coca-Cola’. The District Court passed decree in favour of Coca-Cola Company. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree.

The common people can recognize the term 'Coca-Cola' as a beverage product instead of a compound of particular substances. Use of Coca leaves and cola nut gives the brand ‘Coca-Cola’ a definite and distinctive secondary meaning. Such secondary meaning justifies the continuance of its brand name. Even during advertisement, the Company has expressly mentioned that the people must not expect to find cocaine in it. Defendants’ use of such name similar to the Coca Cola Company amounts to palpable fraud. If such use is allowed, then an ignorant person would be deceived to buy incipient cocaine intoxication drink under the brand name of Coca Cola. Thus, because of having distinctive secondary meaning, the Coca Cola Company deserves the relief it sought for. 

The position of Coca-Cola company is required to be judged from the present scenario and current set of facts. So the Court of Appeals has committed wrong for considering past condition of Coca Cola Company to decide upon its secondary meaning. This is why the decision of Court of Appeals has been reversed.