## Facts

- The Coca-Cola Company owned registered trademarks “Coca-Cola” and “Coke” used nationwide for soft drinks and syrup.
- Ed E. Dorris operated drive-in restaurants in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, including “Dorris House #1” (and previously “Dorris House #2”).
- Customers at Dorris’s establishments ordered “Coke” or “Coca-Cola,” but employees repeatedly served a different cola beverage.
- On multiple occasions between 1966 and 1968, employees confirmed the beverage was “Coke/Coca-Cola” or wrote “Coke” or “Coca-Cola” on tickets, despite serving a substitute.
- Coca-Cola representatives warned Dorris in person and by letter that substituting another beverage when “Coke/Coca-Cola” was ordered, and representing it as such, violated Coca-Cola’s trademark rights.
- Dorris asserted he stopped serving Coca-Cola in 1965, posted a sign stating he served “Dorris House Cola,” and instructed employees to tell customers Coca-Cola products were not available.
- At trial, Dorris offered witnesses supporting disclosure practices, but their testimony lacked specifics and did not rebut the documented instances of substitution.

## Issues

1. Whether serving a non-Coca-Cola beverage in response to orders for “Coke” or “Coca-Cola,” while representing or allowing it to be represented as the requested brand, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.
2. If liability was established, whether permanent injunctive relief (and any additional equitable relief) was warranted.

## Decision

- The court found Dorris engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition by substituting and passing off a non-Coca-Cola beverage when customers ordered “Coke” or “Coca-Cola.”
- The court credited Coca-Cola’s specific evidence of repeated substitution and misrepresentation over Dorris’s generalized proof of signage and instructions.
- The court granted a permanent injunction barring Dorris and those acting for him from using “Coke” or “Coca-Cola” to describe non-Coca-Cola beverages and from serving substitutes in response to such orders without clear disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- Passing off a substitute product as the trademarked product ordered by a consumer constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- General signage or internal instructions do not negate infringement when actual consumer transactions involve substitution and representations likely to cause confusion.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate where misuse of a mark risks consumer deception and harm to trademark goodwill that is difficult to quantify.

## Conclusion

The court held that Dorris’s repeated substitution of another cola for “Coke” or “Coca-Cola,” coupled with representations that the substitute was Coca-Cola’s product, infringed Coca-Cola’s trademarks and constituted unfair competition, and it entered a permanent injunction to prevent further consumer confusion and harm to the marks.


Coca-Cola Co. v. Dorris, 311 F. Supp. 287 (E.D. Ark. 1970)