COCA-COLA COMPANY

v.

DIXIE-COLA LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Cleo Syrup Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co., 139 F.2d 416 (8th Cir. 1943)
  …have said, it has acquired a secondary meaning in which perhaps the product is more emphasized than the producer but to which the producer is entitled.” See also Dixi-Cola Laboratories v. Coca-Cola Co., 4 Cir., 117 F. 2d 352, 354 (certiorari denied 314 U.S. 629, 62 S.Ct. 60. 86 L.Ed. 505). One certainly cannot be charged with misbranding or misdescribing a product by calling it what it is. There is no merit in the contention that a court of equity will not afford protection to the plaintiff’s trade-mark or…
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Am. OIL Co., 405 F.2d 803 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …1936), cert. denied, 299 U.S. 601, 57 S.Ct. 194, 81 L.Ed. 443, and 304 U.S. 575; King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Indus., Inc., 321 F. 2d 577 (2 Cir. 1963); Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc. v. Coco-Cola Co., 117 F. 2d 352 (4 Cir. 1941), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 629, 62 S.Ct. 60, 86 L.Ed. 505; Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 [*820] U.S. 111, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938). In these cases the name contested had become the generic or popular term for the article in question. This was so even though th…
• Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208 (2d Cir. 1985)
  …showing of secondary meaning, courts increasingly have been called upon to delineate the chimerical line between the descriptive and the generic. See, e.g., Dixi Cola Laboratories, Inc. v. Coca-Cola, Co., 117 F. 2d 352, 360 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 629, 62 S.Ct. 60, 86 L.Ed. 505 (1941). . Of course, if a mark is classified as descriptive, courts must first examine a variety of factors to determine whether the mark has acquired secondary meaning, and is therefore eligible for protection. . We rec…