Coca-Cola Co. v. Brown & Allen
| Decision Date | 22 July 1921 |
| Citation | 274 F. 481 |
| Parties | COCA-COLA CO. v. BROWN & ALLEN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Candler Thomson & Hirsch, of Atlanta, Ga., for complainant.
Brewster Howell & Heyman, of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
The Coca-Cola Company is the manufacturer of a syrup known as Coca-Cola, which it sells to soda founts to be diluted with carbonated water and sold as a drink to the public. To create a public demand it spends annually much money in advertising and has a large and well-established patronage for its drink so sold. Brown & Allen, operating a soda fount, purchase Coca-Cola from the Coca-Cola Company and dispense it. An injunction pendente lite is now sought against an alleged unfair practice of Brown & Allen.
1. Jurisdiction is contested because an insufficient amount is said to be involved. It may be that the damages recoverable from Brown & Allen are less than $3,000, or even that none are recoverable because incapable of estimation; but the wrong alleged affects the value of petitioner's good will in business, which may be greatly injured by a continuance of the practice attacked. The value of this good will, which greatly exceeds $3,000, may be looked to in determining the amount involved, and the jurisdiction is thereby sustained. Frontera Transp. Co. v. Abaunza (C.C.A.) 271 F. 199.
2. The evidence authorizes a finding that, while filling glasses for Coca-Cola, the defendants at their fount, in the presence of the customer, draw into the glass an amount of syrup resembling in consistency and color petitioner's product and then add the usual amount of carbonated water and such flavors as the customer may order. The syrup so drawn is Coca-Cola, to which water, sugar, and caramel have been added before putting it in the fount. The water, of course, increases the amount of syrup and weakens it. The sugar, however, serves to restore its consistency and the caramel its color; they being used for this purpose in making the original syrup. Analyses indicate that the adulteration results in making about two gallons out of one. Thus, if the usual amount of syrup is drawn for a customer, his drink really contains but one-half the peculiar constituents of Coca-Cola, and is somewhat altered, perhaps, in taste.
It is contended that this is not only a fraud upon the public, but reflects itself also as one upon the petitioner, because the customer, in the language of the street, will conclude that 'Coca-Cola is no good any more,' and its popularity will be destroyed. On the other hand, it is said that the syrup was sold to be diluted, and the time and manner of its dilution is immaterial, and that by treating it as they do defendants please their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bagby v. Blackwell, 20964.
...v. Tiffany Productions, Inc., 264 N.Y.S. 459, 188 N.E. 30; Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v. Horluck's, Inc., 59 F. 2d 13; Coca-Cola Company v. Brown & Allen, 274 F. 481; British-American Cigar Stores, 211 F. 933, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 363; Potter v. Ward Baking Company, 288 F. 597 (Aff'd 298 F. 39......
-
Bagby v. Blackwell
... ... N.E. 30; Horlick's Malted Milk Corp. v ... Horluck's, Inc., 59 F.2d 13; Coca-Cola Company ... v. Brown & Allen, 274 F. 481; British-American Cigar ... Stores, 211 F. 933, Ann ... ...
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Hy-Po Co.
...271 F. 600; Coca-Cola Co. v. Duberstein (D. C.) 249 F. 763; Coca-Cola v. Chero-Cola Co., 51 App. D. C. 27, 273 F. 755; Coca-Cola Co. v. Brown & Allen (D. C.) 274 F. 481; Coca-Cola v. Gay-Ola Co. (C. C. A.) 200 F. 720; Coca-Cola v. Koke Co., 254 U. S. 143, 41 S. Ct. 113, 65 L. Ed. There is, ......
-
Adam Hat Stores v. Scherper
...of the name "Adam" in connection with hats. The alleged wrong affects the value of petitioner's good will in business. Coca-Cola Co. v. Brown & Allen, D.C., 274 F. 481. It is my conclusion that both jurisdictional grounds, as alleged in the complaint, have been established. The injunction m......