Coca-Cola Co. v. Dorris

311 F. Supp. 287 (1970)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Coca-Cola Co. v. Dorris

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
311 F. Supp. 287 (1970)

Facts

Ed Dorris (defendant) did business as Dorris House #1 and Dorris House #2 (collectively, Dorris House) in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) (plaintiff) brought a trademark-infringement action against Dorris in federal district court, alleging that Dorris had substituted and passed off other beverages as Coca-Cola’s products to customers at Dorris House. Coca-Cola alleged that it sold its products worldwide under the registered trademarks Coca-Cola and Coke. Coca-Cola claimed that between 1966 and 1968, when customers had ordered Coke or Coca-Cola at Dorris House, Dorris House employees had substituted another similar-looking beverage a total of 24 times without informing the customer that the beverage was being substituted. During some instances of substitution, Dorris House employees confirmed verbally or in writing that customers wanted and were purportedly being given Coke or Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola representatives advised Dorris in person and by letter that Dorris’s actions were infringing on Coca-Cola’s trademarks. However, Dorris’s beverage substitutions continued even after those warnings. Dorris asserted that he had posted a sign at Dorris House #1 stating that Dorris House did not serve Coke or Coca-Cola and instead served Dorris House Cola. Dorris also claimed that he had told his employees to tell customers ordering Coke or Coca-Cola that Dorris House served Dorris House Cola. However, evidence showed that the employees had not followed those instructions. Dorris also produced witnesses who claimed that they knew Dorris House did not serve Coca-Cola and had heard Dorris House employees tell customers about Dorris House Cola. However, those witnesses could not give precise information about when they heard those conversations. Coca-Cola sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Dorris from further infringing on Coca-Cola’s trademarks and passing off other beverages as Coke or Coca-Cola.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Harris, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership