Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 F.2d 352 - Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.

Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.’s Empirical Analysis

117 F.2d 352 · 1941

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Thompson Medical Co. v. Pfizer Inc. (1985), Cleo Syrup Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co. (1943)

23 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

1701941195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 81 · 21 U.S.C. § 1

Relies on Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G Co · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · American Steel Foundries v. Robertson

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““From giving to any part of their merchandise not sold by defendants, their agents or distributors, in bottles to consumers, a color imitating or resembling the color of plaintiff’s product, if or when defendants know, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, that the purchaser thereof intends to dispense such merchandise to the consumer other than in bottles, including dispensing to customers of soda fountains, taverns, restaurants, or bar rooms, in response to filling orders from any such customers for plaintiff’s product 1 including orders for use of same as one of the ingredients of a mixed beverage; or intends to bottle the beverage made from defendants’ product, and to use on the bottles, labels or caps some extrinsic deceiving element that in conjunction with the color imitating plaintiff’s color enables such purchaser to pass off his, her or their product for plaintiff’s product”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The adoption of the word ‘cola’ to characterize a class of drinks thus came about very naturally, to some extent with the consent of the Coca-Cola Company * * * and to a greater extent because in the course of events it could not be prevented.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““No reported case has come to our attention which distinctly holds that the word ‘cola’ cannot be used as part of a name of a beverage provided that the whole name is not confusingly similar to Coca-Cola.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.