As reported early this year( see earlier post), the drink made from the coca leaf and named after the indigenous Colla people from Bolivia's highlands, is now being distributed and is on sale in Bolivia. Some 12,000 bottles were distributed last Monday to the capital city of La Paz, and also to Santa Cruz and Cochabamba. 
Yet, there is not comment from Coca-Cola Co on this new red-labelled beverage which appears to have quite a similar name and trade dress, don’t you think? (right)
The Guardian reports that this is not the first time Coca-Cola Co has faced a South American coca rival. In 2005, Colombia started also making and selling a drink based on coca extracts – Coca Sek. However, the drink was banned a year latter due to pressure from the international narcotics control board.
Another situation which can also be seen is future markets. Victor Ledezma, president of the Social Organization for Industrialization of Coca Leaf (Ospicoca), which created, developed and promoted the drink, said that there are plans to export the product. So far he has received offers from China, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and Japan. Will the export of Coca-Colla be the final straw for Coca-Cola Co?
Sunday Surprises
12 hours ago
3 comments
Write commentsWe do have the resources to bring it about here:
Replyhttp://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/coca-come-back.html
Alas, the drug policy reform movement has an enormous dead weight in the form of Ira Glasser and his taking of cigarette industry money that betrays us.
The discussion is not much about the legal or illegal use of 'coca' in produts. The blog intention is to question the branding of the product i.e. trade-dress: name, red colour, plastic bottle, dark liquid and fizzy drink and so on.
ReplyThere is no trademark infringement because coca cola should have never gotten the trademark in the first place and no one as yet to challenge such that the trademark is illegal. First, coca-colla has more right to use the name because the soda does contain coca and they say so, while coca cola does not contain such, because if it does to keep the name they have to inform the public if not it will be false advertising and if they do, there sale will be decreased. Second a long time ago, 1906/14, the US govt challenge coca cola in court n it went all the way to the Supreme court, that they cannot keep the name coca because it became illegal in 1903 so then the soda cannot keep the name sicne there was no-longer coca allowed. However, Justice Holmes failed to answer the question n the case was remanded to the lower court and an agreement was enter between the govt and coca cola to keep the name for lots of money. So, we now see why.
Reply