Coca-Cola Co. v. Chero-Cola Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 1393. |
| Citation | 273 F. 755 |
| Parties | COCA-COLA CO. v. CHERO-COLA CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted May 9, 1921.
C. L Parker and Melville Church, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Appellee made application to have registered in the Patent Office the words 'Chero-Cola' as a trade-mark for 'Cola,' a soft drink. The application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that it (the appellant) was the owner of the registered mark 'Coca-Cola,' which is applied by it to the same kind of a drink. The Examiner of Interferences sustained the opposition, but was reversed by the Commissioner of Patents.
Opposer has been using its mark since 1886, while applicant did not adopt its mark until 1911. It is conceded that the goods of the parties have the same descriptive properties, and therefore there is but one matter for our decision, namely whether or not the marks are so similar as to be likely to cause confusion in the public mind or to deceive purchasers. 33 Stat.L. 725 (Comp. St. Sec. 9490).
Nearly 3,000 pages of testimony were taken, and elaborate briefs have been filed. Many decisions by courts in this country and in England are cited, and, besides, we are invited to listen to the teaching of psychology on the subject. None the less the question in dispute is a simple one, and the principles by which its solution may be reached have been often declared and applied by this court.
It is true that, if we analyze the two marks, differences will be found. They do not sound quite alike, and the number of letters in each is not the same; but these are only arguable differences, which are not enough to defeat the opposition. William Waltke & Co. v. Geo. H. Schafer & Co., 49 App.D.C. 254, 256, 263 F. 650, and cases cited; Thos Manufacturing Co. v. AEolian Co., 47 App.D.C. 376, 379.
Each of the marks embraces two hyphenated words. 'C' is the first letter in each mark, and 'Cola' the last word in each. The image which one mark paints upon the mind is not clearly different from that made by the other mark. To require that the line which separates marks should be well defined is not to ask too much, since the field from which a person may select a mark is almost limitless. Florence Manufacturing Co. v. Dowd & Co., 178 F. 73, 75, 101 C.C.A. 565; Waltke & Co. v. Schafer & Co., supra; Thos. Manufacturing Co. v. AEolian Co., supra, 47 App.D.C. 378. If he is not content with a word to be found in a dictionary, he may coin one.
Of course, if the two marks were placed together, or if a person's attention was in some other way directed to them, there would be no difficulty in apprehending the difference between them. This, however, is not the way to make the test. Ordinarily the prospective purchaser does not carry more than a faint impression of the mark he is looking for. If the article offered to him bears a mark having any resemblance to the one he is thinking of, he is likely to accept it. He acts quickly. He is governed by a general glance. The law does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harold F. Ritchie, Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.
...Co. v. R. W. Bell Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 77 F. 869, 877; Esso, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., 8 Cir., 98 F.2d 1, 5. 19 Coca-Cola Co. v. Chero-Cola Co., 51 App.D.C. 27, 273 F. 755; G. D. Searle & Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 265 F.2d 385, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 819, 80 S.Ct. 64. This i......
-
Dixi-Cola Laboratories v. Coca-Cola Co.
...Syrup Co. v. Coca Cola Co., 6 Cir., 215 F. 527, Ann.Cas.1915 B, 358; Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett, 8 Cir., 238 F. 513; Coca-Cola Co. v. Chero-Cola Co., 51 App.D.C. 27, 273 F. 755; Steinreich v. Coca-Cola Co., Cust. & Pat.App., 67 F.2d The decisions in trade-mark cases seem to show that some dif......
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling Works
...Coca-Cola Co. v. Duberstein (D. C.) 249 F. 763; Coca-Cola Co. v. Old Dominion Beverage Co. (C. C. A.) 271 F. 600; Coca-Cola Co. v. Chero-Cola Co., 51 App. D. C. 27, 273 F. 755, the latest of which had been rendered nearly two years before, in which certain words were held to be an infringem......
-
The Coca-Cola Co. v. Nehi Corp.
...... beverage were acquired by Mr. Candler in that year. He. subsequently manufactured and sold Coca-Cola in Atlanta in. connection with the wholesale drug business, known as. "Asa G. Candler & Co." The Georgia corporate. predecessors of Nehi Corporation were first, Chero-Cola. Company, organized in 1912, and later Nehi, Inc., organized. in 1926. The present defendant, Nehi Corporation, was. organized in Delaware in 1938. . . Other. material facts will appear in the opinion of the court. . . The. complainant company sought to perpetually ......
-
Consumer Uncertainty in Trademark Law: an Experimental Investigation
...Preferences, 36 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 579, 580 (1992). 66. See supra notes 56-62 and accompanying text.67. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Chero-Cola Co., 273 F. 755, 756 (D.C. Cir. 1921).68. See Edward S. Rogers, An Account of Some Psychological Experiments on the Subject of Trade-Mark Infringement, 18 Mi......