## Facts

- The Coca-Cola Company sold soft-drink syrup under the trademark “Coca-Cola.”
- Coca-Cola alleged that many consumers abbreviated “Coca-Cola” to “koke” or “coke,” and that, when used for a soft drink, those terms signified Coca-Cola to the public.
- Defendants planned to manufacture, advertise, and sell a soft drink under the name “Koke-Up.”
- Coca-Cola sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring defendants from using “koke” (alone or with other words) on beverage syrup or beverages, and from otherwise infringing or competing unfairly.
- Defendants denied that “koke/coke” was a common public abbreviation for Coca-Cola, admitted their intent to use “Koke-Up,” and denied any likelihood of confusion or unfair competition.
- The matter proceeded to a final hearing on the merits, although defendants’ use was still threatened rather than established in the marketplace.

## Issues

1. Whether “koke/coke” had acquired a protectable association with Coca-Cola such that defendants’ proposed use of “Koke-Up” for a soft drink would likely cause consumer confusion and constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition.
2. Whether a court of equity may grant injunctive relief based on threatened use of a confusing designation before the product is marketed.

## Decision

- The court granted injunctive relief for Coca-Cola.
- The court held that defendants’ proposed use of “Koke-Up” would likely confuse consumers and would constitute infringement and unfair competition.
- The injunction restrained defendants from using “koke” (including in “Koke-Up” or otherwise) in connection with the manufacture, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of beverage syrup or beverages, and from other infringing or unfairly competitive conduct.
- The court held that equitable relief could issue preventively, without requiring Coca-Cola to wait for actual market sales under the challenged name.

## Legal Principles

- A designation not formally registered may be protected when public usage has given it secondary meaning identifying a particular producer’s goods.
- Likelihood of confusion is established where a competitor adopts a designation strongly associated with another’s product for the same type of goods, particularly where the choice indicates an intent to benefit from the other’s goodwill.
- Unfair competition principles protect both the mark holder’s goodwill and the public from deceptive marketing practices.
- Equity may enjoin threatened trademark infringement and unfair competition when anticipated harm and consumer deception are likely and legal remedies are inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined defendants’ proposed use of “Koke-Up,” finding that “koke/coke” had come to identify Coca-Cola in the public mind and that using “koke” for a competing soft drink would likely mislead consumers, constitute unfair competition, and justify anticipatory injunctive relief.


Coca-Cola Co. v. Busch, 44 F. Supp. 405 (E.D. Pa. 1942)