Coke Zero Wins Trademark Dispute With Naturally Zero Water
from the the-mark-of-zero dept
With all the insane intellectual property court rulings we see 'round these parts, it's helpful to highlight when the courts manage to get things right. Trademark, in particular, is a source of frustration, given how often we see court rulings that err on the side of protectionism rather than liberal use of language. One Illinois court recently got things right in dismissing a suit against Coca-Cola over its Coke Zero drink, which was brought by Blue Spring Water, makers of a water product called Naturally Zero.
U.S. District Judge John Lee said that the “Naturally Zero” label straightaway conveys to consumers that the product is without calories or additives, and therefore not suggestive enough to supply a trademark that is inherently distinctive for a beverage label.It's a distinction too often lost in trademark discussions: terms that are purely descriptive are not protected by trademark law. And it's easy to understand why. If I decide to buck the potato chip trend and make chips out of carrots, calling my product "Carrot Chips", that term isn't protected by trademark in the same way it would be if my product was called "Dark Helmet's Disgusto-Snack Of Gross."
In addition to problems with the product name itself, there were also issues with Blue Spring Water's rather haphazard approach to its own product.
It was later stated that even if the trademark was protectable, the Canadian company had abandoned the mark back in 2004 after failing to reintroduce the “Naturally Zero’ products onto the marketplace. The company had only produced about 500,000 bottles of the “Naturally Zero” water. In 2010 when Blue Spring began using the ‘Naturally Zero” label again, Coca-Cola had already introduced several “Zero” products onto the market including Coke Zero and Sprite Zero with trademarks.So nice try, silly water company. You're no match for a caffeinated powerhouse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: coke zero, naturally zero, trademark, zero
Companies: blue spring water, coca-cola
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whereas Coke ZERO and Sprite ZERO instantly convey to the drinker that there will be ZERO chance of them ever trying the dreadful stuff ever again!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It tastes just like Coke, but I cannot say that in my marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know you want to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saved by Zero
Saved by Zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saved by Zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
labelling issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case they claimed that ZERO is descriptive, which allowed them to defend the infringement claim, but they also maintain the claim that the billion's they spend on advertising and sales gives the mark the acquired distinctiveness they need to claim their use of ZERO as a trademark. This case was more about the lack of real use by the Naturally Zero people.
The real battle over ZERO is Royal Crown's opposition to Coca-Cola's ZERO marks, which may actually be decided soon, after seven years of battling. Royal Crown claims, correctly, that ZERO is descriptive of no calorie or zero calorie beverages, and I really hope they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wouldn't be the first, one of many.
http://www.grimmway.com/corporate/carrots/carrot-chips.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds descriptive to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had a sort of similar thing here in Oz where a bottled water company had to remove the word 'organic' from the label but not due to trademark
Given water is a combination of 2 gas molecules and usually contains minerals, something organic is probably the last thing you want to ever find in a bottle labelled water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The way most bottled water is made is that tap water is distilled or heavily filtered, then some minerals are added to it (drinking distilled water isn't good for you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]