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.