Coca-Cola Co. v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 08 December 1916
• Docket Number: 4605.
• Citation: 238 F. 513
• Parties: COCA-COLA CO. v. BENNETT et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

238 F. 513

COCA-COLA CO. v. BENNETT et al.

No. 4605.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 8, 1916

Frank F. Reed and Edward Rogers, both of Chicago, Ill. (Candler Thompson & Hirsch, of Atlanta, Ga., Holmes, Yankey & Holmes of Wichita, Kan., Harold Hirsch, of Atlanta, Ga., and Charles G. Yankey, of Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.

C. M Williams, of Hutchinson, Kan., for appellees.

Before SANBORN, ADAMS, and CARLAND, Circuit Judges.

CARLAND Circuit Judge.

Appellant brought this action against appellees to restrain an alleged trade-mark infringement and unfair competition. The trial court, upon consideration of the pleadings and certain stipulated facts, dismissed the complaint for want of equity. The facts upon which appellant relies for relief are substantially as follows:

Appellant is a corporation of the state of Georgia, with its principal place of business at Atlanta, in said state. Appellees are copartners doing business under the firm name of Bennett Mineral & Distilled Water Company at Hutchinson, Kan. Appellant is the owner of the trade-mark 'Coca-Cola' and the business of the manufacture and sale of two kinds of syrup in connection therewith. The trade-mark covers both the syrups and beverages made therefrom. It was registered in the Patent Office of the United States January 31, 1893, and again October 31, 1905. The name 'Coca-Cola' has been exclusively used by appellant and its predecessors, since on or about the year 1886, for the purpose of identifying the syrups manufactured by it and its predecessors as their own product, and to distinguish it from all other articles marketed and sold by others. The name 'Coca-Cola' has been used by said appellant exclusively in connection with its product, by attaching and applying said name to all barrels, kegs, jugs, bottles, and other receptacles containing said product, and also by placing said name on labels in connection therewith.

Great care, skill, and judgment have at all times been used by appellant and its predecessors in the manufacture of said product, Coca-Cola, in order to protect it from contamination and impurities, and in the barreling and putting up of said product, so that the product should reach the consumer in a clean and wholesome condition, and great pains have also been taken by appellant that the bottles and other receptacles in which the product has been placed are free from dirt or objectionable matter, and great amounts of time and labor have been expended by appellant in marketing and selling its product under the name 'Coca-Cola' throughout the United States and in foreign countries. Coca-Cola is universally known, and large sums have been expended in advertising said product. The product Coca-Cola is received by the consuming public in two ways-- over the soda fountain, and in bottles. The syrup as such is not consumed by the public. At the soda fountain it is mixed with carbonated water, and in bottles it is similarly mixed.

Appellant does not bottle its bottling product itself, but its entire bottling product is sold under contract to two Tennessee corporations, viz. Coca-Cola Bottling Company and The Coca-Cola Bottling Company, which in turn have given the privilege under contract to certain other corporations and individuals to bottle the syrup made for bottling purposes and to use in connection therewith the trade-mark 'Coca-Cola.' Among the corporations having the privilege of bottling is the Western Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Any person or corporation receiving authority by contract to bottle and sell bottled Coca-Cola in a prescribed territory agrees to bottle the same in the following manner:

To prepare and put in bottles using a crown stopper thereon, a mixture of Coca-Cola syrup and of water charged with carbonic acid gas under pressure of not less than one atmosphere, said Coca-Cola syrup and said water in said mixture to be used in proportions of not less than one ounce of Coca-Cola syrup to each seven or eight ounce bottle of carbonated water, making thereof a carbonated drink of the strength stated. Said person or corporations also agree not to add any compound, syrup, color, flavoring matter, acid, headings, sugar, or other sweetener, or any other preservative of any name or nature, or any other substance or ingredient whatsoever, or any water, other than pure carbonated water, commonly called soda water, to the syrup furnished by the plaintiff or to the water used for carbonating, and also agree not to use for said Coca-Cola syrup any substitute whatever, or to make any other drink and sell same under the name Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola Bottling Company and The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Tennessee take the entire output of the product of the appellant manufactured for bottling purposes. No other person, firm, or corporation buys or can buy the same from the appellant. The appellant is in no way directly or indirectly interested in the two Coca-Cola Bottling Companies, above described, or interested in any of their profits; but the contract between them provides that appellant shall retain control over its trade-mark and have the right of inspection and supervision, for the purpose of securing the bottling of its product according to contract as hereinbefore stated. The two bottling companies, with the consent of appellant, have divided the territory described in the contract between them, and said companies have entered into contracts with other companies, by which contracts local bottling companies are given the exclusive right within certain restricted territory to bottle and sell the bottled product, Coca-Cola.

The Western Coca-Cola Company, organized under the laws of the state of Illinois, is one of these companies. Its territory embraces several states, including Kansas. The bottling companies do not enter into a contract with more than one person, firm, or corporation in the territory allotted to any local bottler. The contracts between the two Coca-Cola Bottling Companies, sometimes referred to as the parent companies, and the various local bottling companies, are always approved and consented to by the appellant. The appellant has no financial interest in the local bottling plants. The appellant sells its bottling product to the parent bottling companies above described, and will not accept any order for said product, except from these two bottling companies, and no other person, firm, or corporation can buy Coca-Cola syrup from appellant for bottling purposes than the companies above described. The local bottling companies are supplied direct from the factories of the parent bottling companies, but the order comes to the appellant through the parent bottling companies, and these bottling companies pay appellant for the bottled product so distributed to the local bottling plants. The shipments of bottling syrup are made both in interstate and intrastate commerce, aggregating a large volume of business.

The defendants are using the trade-mark 'Coca-Cola' on a bottled product without the authority or permission of appellant. The product so bottled by defendants is the Coca-Cola...