The 'Coke Zero' Trademark Madness May Finally Be Coming To An End
from the finally dept
Did you know that Coca-Cola has been attempting to get a trademark on the word "zero" for beverages in the United States for well over a decade? Yes, the most well-known soft-drink maker, which sells a product called 'Coke Zero', first filed for a trademark on the single word in 2003. The fight has been ongoing ever since, with Dr. Pepper Snapple Group opposing the trademark, because, well, lots of other beverage companies use that common word and because of course it did. Oddly, we covered a trademark case a few years back in which Coca-Cola was on the receiving end of a trademark suit over its use of the word, that time from a water company that offered a product it had named 'Naturally Zero.' Of note was Judge John Lee's justification for siding with Coca-Cola in that case:
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.That opinion appeared to be a sign of things to come. Coca-Cola had lost its bid to trademark the word "zero" in the U.K. after regulators sided with Pepsi Co.'s opposition. Just weeks ago, as well, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office rejected Coca-Cola's application entirely, reasoning that the use of the word zero was descriptive of the caloric content of the drink. These rulings, along with ongoing challenges by Coke to others using the word for beverage products, have become the setting for what will be an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Trademark Office, which should finally put to rest the dispute between Coke and Dr. Pepper.
Arguments wrapped up in December, after Coke and Dr Pepper logged hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits in 170 filings with the U.S. trademark office. A ruling could come before the summer, based on past trademark registration disputes, say people familiar with the case.I would contend that the above is improperly written, as the barrage of oppositions from and against Coke suggests the onslaught of competition already exists. That should have been expected, because we're talking about the word "zero" here, and in an industry rife with no-calorie drinks, how could that word not be in common usage?
If Coke prevails, it could more easily sue imitators. If it loses, it could face an onslaught of competitors such as Dr Pepper's Diet Rite Pure Zero, who take the name and dilute a brand that has turned out to be a star for Coke in a game that has been rough going.
More interesting to me will be to see how the USPTO ruling lines up with our neighbors in the world. There seems to be little sense in arguing anything other than that the word "zero" ought to be free for use rather than locked up behind trademark protections. Should the USPTO rule differently, however, it will serve as a nice and tidy example of just how crazy the office is in leaning towards protectionism as a rule.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OMG if they are able to call a product that I would totally assume that the contents of the bottle are coke because of the word zero on the label, and ignore all of the other words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Add a couple more ZERO000s..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dibs on "zilch" and "nada"!
Actually, "Lemon nada" might make it through a trademark registration. And how about "Zilch worm", the mezcal for vegetarians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially if they cannot prove the service/product they are delivering in connection to that word is unique.
I'm pretty sure there are enough "zero"/"light"/etc. versions of various products and services that such a trademark should have been denied from the start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and phrases in common use .
Phrase,s not even invented by the company seeking the trademark .
Coke can put a label on the can ,
no calories ,or zero calories or continue to
use coke zero without a trademark.
IF you did not invent a word or a phrase
you should not be allowed to trademark it.
No idiot buys pepsi zero or cola zero and
thinks they are buying coke .
eg sony tried and failed to get a us trademark
the phrase lets play in regard to video games played
and streamed online .
IF it had got a trademark it might have
been able to take down 1000,s of video,s
or demand a revenue share of videos
streamed online of gameplay videos .
rather than trying to take ownership of a common
word that is useful for consumers to choose food ,
ie let any company state this drink has zero calorie,s
And compete in the market place
on quality or price .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple MacIntosh. Word for Windows. Yahoo (maybe they should have gone for Houyhnhnm instead: Houyhnhnm.com does not appear taken yet apart from cybersquatters).
And Coca Cola is purely descriptive, listing two ingredients. It's like a cookie brand Sugar Flour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
water forty sugar sixty coke zero®
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASPARTAME
If there is any use of the word ZERO as it relates to soda or soft drinks, it should be ZERO "Aspartame." OR, don't drink it.
Write to your Congress person and tell them you know aspartame will kill you and should be BANNED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Champagne was first
http://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-champagne+brut+nature+-+zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]