## Facts

- The Coca-Cola Company sold a soft drink syrup under the mark “Coca-Cola,” using labels depicting coca leaves and kola nuts.
- The drink originally contained some cocaine derived from coca leaves and was advertised as a tonic and stimulant, but cocaine was eliminated long before suit and the product was sold as a beverage free from cocaine.
- Over time, “Coca-Cola” came to identify the plaintiff’s product in the marketplace rather than describing its ingredients.
- The Koke Company of America and related parties produced and sold a competing syrup in imitation of Coca-Cola’s product and used the terms “Koke” and “Dope” in marketing.
- Coca-Cola sought equitable relief for trademark infringement and unfair competition; defendants argued Coca-Cola should be denied relief because the name and advertising were allegedly deceptive as to ingredients.
- The district court granted an injunction; the court of appeals reversed on the ground that Coca-Cola’s mark and advertising were too misleading to merit equitable protection.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged deception in Coca-Cola’s mark and advertising barred equitable relief under unclean hands.
2. Whether “Coca-Cola,” given product changes and alleged misdescription, remained protectable as a mark identifying source through secondary meaning against “Koke.”
3. Whether injunctive relief could extend to banning use of “Dope” and forbidding defendants from making and selling a similar product, or only to preventing deception as to source.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated injunctive relief with modifications.
- The Court held the unclean-hands/fraud defense was narrow and did not defeat Coca-Cola’s claim on the facts as they existed when suit was filed (after cocaine had been eliminated).
- The Court upheld protection for “Coca-Cola” based on secondary meaning and enjoined defendants’ use of “Koke” and related passing-off conduct intended to trade on Coca-Cola’s goodwill.
- The Court modified the injunction to permit use of “Dope” and to allow manufacture and sale of the competing product (including coloring), so long as defendants avoided deception.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may be denied trademark relief only when the mark or associated conduct operates as a present fraud on the public; this unclean-hands theory is a limited defense and is closely examined when asserted by an infringer.
- For this defense, the plaintiff’s conduct is evaluated as of the time the suit begins, not solely by earlier product composition or historical advertising.
- A term that may have been descriptive or suggestive can become protectable once it acquires secondary meaning—i.e., it comes to identify a single source in the minds of consumers.
- Intentional imitation and adoption of a confusingly similar name to benefit from another’s advertising supports injunctive relief for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Injunctions should be tailored: courts may bar confusingly similar designations used to mislead consumers, but should not grant exclusive rights in generic or non-distinctive terms or forbid lawful competition absent deception.

## Conclusion

The Court protected “Coca-Cola” because it had acquired secondary meaning and defendants used “Koke” to capitalize on that goodwill; alleged past or implied ingredient misdescription did not, on the facts at filing, bar equitable relief, and the injunction was limited to preventing deception rather than prohibiting use of “Dope” or lawful sales of a competing product.


Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of Am., 254 U.S. 143 (1920)