Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

November 17, 2016

ROYAL CROWN COMPANY, INC. and DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Appellants,
v.
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Appellee.

         APPEAL FROM THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN OPPOSITION NOS. 91178927, 91180771, 91180772, 91183482, 91185755, 91186579, 91190658

          LAURA POPP-ROSENBERG BARBARA SOLOMON EMILY WEISS FROSS, ZELNICK, LEHRMAN & ZISSU, PC Attorneys for Appellants.

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST

         Counsel for the:

         [ ] (petitioner) [X] (appellant) [ ] (respondent) [ ] (appellee) [ ] (amicus)[ ] (name of party)

         certifies the following (use "None" if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):

1. Full Name of Party Represented by me

2. Name of Real Party in interest (Please only include any real party in interest NOT identified in Question 3) represented by me is:

3. Parent corporations and publicly held companies that own 10 % or more of stock in the party

Royal Crown Company, Inc.

NONE

Snapple Beverage Corp.

Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.

DPS Holdings Inc.

DPS Americas Beverages, LLC

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.

DP Beverages Inc.

         4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:

Giselle Huron and Alexander Greenberg, former associates at Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

         Date: 11/17/2016

         Signature of counsel Laura Popp-Rosenberg

         Printed name of counsel Laura Popp-Rosenberg

         Please Note: All questions must be answered.

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

         I. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ........................................................... 1

         II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 2

         III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ................... 3

         IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 4

         V. STATEMENT OF THE FACT S ..................................................................... 7

         A. The Parties ................................................................................................ 7

         B. Market Use and Understanding of "Zero" in Reference to Soft Drinks ........................................................................................... 7

         C. TCCC's Use and Attempted Appropriation of "Zero" .......................... 13

         VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 15

         VII. APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................. 16

         VIII. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 17

         A. The Board Committed Legal Error by Requiring Royal Crown to Prove That "Zero" Is the "Name" of a "Category" of Goods .......... 17

         B. The Board Erred by Giving Weight to TCCC's Sales of ZERO-Named Beverages in Assessing Genericness ........................... 21

         C. The Board Erred in Disregarding or Discounting Significant Evidence on the Question of Genericness ............................................ 26

         1. The Board Erred in Discounting the Evidence of 32 ZERO-Named Soft Drinks from Companies Other Than TCCC .......................................................................... 27

         2. The Board Erred in Disregarding Most of Royal Crown's Evidence of Third-Party Registrations and Applications, and in Discounting Those Registrations It Did Consider .............. 31

         3. The Board Erred in Disregarding Evidence of the Parties' and Competitors' Use of "Zero" Other Than in Product Names ........................................................................... 33

         4. The Board Erred in Disregarding Evidence of How a Beverage Industry Trade Association Regards Zero ..................... 37

         D. The Board Erred as a Matter of Law in Finding That TCCC Had Developed Acquired Distinctiveness in "ZERO" ......................... 39

         1. The Board Erred in Finding TCCC's Use to Be Substantially Exclusive ........................................................ 39

         2. The Board Erred By Not Explaining the Legal Basis on which TCCC Allegedly Acquired Distinctiveness ................... 43

         IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 46

         NOTE ON CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED

         Pursuant to the Federal Circuit Rule 28(d)(1)(A), material subject to a protective order entered by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been redacted from this brief. The confidential information on page 10 relates to sales figures of a third party, which were designated by that third party as confidential. The confidential information on pages 11 and 12 relate to the results of a consumer survey undertaken on behalf of appellee, and appellee has designated the material as confidential.

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

         CASES

         Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 189 U.S.P.Q. 759 (2d Cir. 1976) ............................................................................................... 24

         BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 27

         Classic Foods International Corp. v. Kettle Foods, Inc., 468 F.Supp.2d 1181 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................. 28, 34, 38

         Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) ............................................................................................ 17

         H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of First Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......................................................... 18

         Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 16

         In re 1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............. 19, 20, 27

         In re Analog Devices, 871 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................... 25

         In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................... 16-17

         In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................. 20

         In re G.D. Searle & Co., 360 F.2d 650 (C.C.P.A. 1966) .......................................... 47

         In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................... 35-36, 36

         In re Louisiana Fish Fry Products, Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 22, 46

         In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 22

         In re Northland Aluminum Products Inc., 777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................. 22, 26

         In re Precision Cuts, Inc., 131 Fed.Appx. 288 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................ 25

         In re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............. passim

         In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 39

         J & J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald's Corp., 932 F.2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................... 44

         J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx & Co., 280 F.2d 437 (C.C.P.A. 1960) .................................................................................................. 23

         Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................... 17

         Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, 794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 31, 42

         L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc., 192 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................... 41

         Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............... 39, 40

         Marion Laboratories, Inc. v. Biochemical/ Diagnostics Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ............................................................. 44-45

         Miller Brewing Co. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 655 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1981) ..................................................................................................... 24

         Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977) ..................................................................................................... 25

         On-Line Careline, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... 17

         Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., 786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 16, 18

         Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................ 17

         Roselux Chemical Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., 299 F.2d 855 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ............................................................................ 43

         Schulmerich Electronics, Inc. v. J.C. Deagan, Inc., 202 F.2d 772 (C.C.P.A. 1953) ............................................................................ 24

         Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC v. Christal, Opp. No. 91177752, 2008 WL 5454159 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2008) .................................................... 44

         Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distributors, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 1072 (T.T.A.B. 1983) ................................................................... 45

         Spraying Systems Co. v. Delavan, Inc., 975 F.2d 387 (7th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................... 45

         Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915 (C.C.P.A. 1976) ......................... 32

         Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1961) ...................................................................... 23, 24

         STATUTES

         15 U.S.C. § 1052 ............................................................................................ 5, 14, 22

         15 U.S.C. § 1067 ........................................................................................................ 2

         15 U.S.C. § 1071 .................................................................................................... 2, 3

         28 U.S.C. § 1295 .................................................................................................... 2-3

         REGULATION

         37 C.F.R. § 2.145 ....................................................................................................... 3

         TREATISE

         J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2015) ........................................................................... 31, 38

         I. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

         This Court's decision in the pending appeal will directly affect several proceedings pending in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office between appellee The Coca-Cola Company and third parties. In each of these proceedings, The Coca-Cola Company has asserted its right in the trademarks at issue here to oppose a third-party application to register a ZERO-inclusive trademark for beverages. The pending proceedings are:

The Coca-Cola Company v. Bawls Acquisition LLC, Opp. No. 91230474, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 86/873, 245 for BAWLS GUARANA ZERO;
The Coca-Cola Company v. Icee of America, Inc., Opp. No. 91228181, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 86/478, 811 for ICEE ZERO;
The Coca-Cola Company v. Bovis Foods, LLC, Opp. No. 91207116, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 85/384, 208 for MARGARITA ZERO;
The Coca-Cola Company v. Robert J. Corr dba Naturally ZERO, Opp. No. 91197767, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 77/946, 061 for NATURALLY ZERO;
The Coca-Cola Company v. Corporación Industrial Alimenticia, S.A. de C.V., Opp. No. 91187638, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 77/489, 223 for KLASS ZERO and Application Serial No. 77/489, 224 for KLASS CERO;
The Coca-Cola Company v. Companhia de Bebidas das Américas AMBEV, Opp. No. 91186175, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 77/181, 474 for GUARANA ANTARCTICA ZERO AÇÚCAR & Design; and
The Coca-Cola Company v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., Opp. No. 91181930, opposing U.S. trademark Application Serial No. 77/128, 743 for CAFE ZERO.

         II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

         This appeal arises out of a final order of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in consolidated opposition proceedings instituted by Royal Crown Company, Inc. and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. (together, "Royal Crown"). The Board, which had jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1067, issued its final order on May 23, 2016, disposing of all claims. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the Board's ruling in the consolidated opposition proceedings under Section 21(a)(1) of the Lanham Act Section, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). Royal Crown timely filed a Notice of Appeal on July 21, 2016, under Section 21(a)(2) of the Lanham Act Section, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 2.145(d)(1).

         III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

         1. Whether the Board, in determining whether the term "zero" is generic in trademark parlance in reference to zero-calorie soft drinks, applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring Royal Crown to prove that the term "zero" is the "name of a category" of goods, when precedent requires only that the public understands the term to refer to a genus, including a key aspect thereof.

         2. Whether, in determining whether the term "zero" is generic in trademark parlance in reference to zero-calorie soft drinks, the Board erred as a matter of law by according weight to the size and sales of appellee The Coca-Cola Company ("TCCC"), when precedent establishes that such de facto secondary meaning is irrelevant to the genericness inquiry.

         3. Whether, in determining whether the term "zero" is generic in trademark parlance in reference to zero-calorie soft drinks, the Board, which is required to consider all competent evidence, erred in failing to consider or give proper weight to certain record evidence establishing use of the term "zero" and its numeric equivalent in reference to zero-calorie soft drinks.

         4. Whether the Board's conclusion that TCCC had established acquired distinctiveness in the term "zero" should be reversed as not supported by substantial evidence when the record showed that TCCC's use of ZERO was not substantially exclusive in light of evidence showing 32 ZERO-named soft drinks on the market that did not originate from TCCC.

         5. Whether the Board erred by not specifying the legal basis on which it concluded that TCCC had established acquired distinctiveness in the term "zero" when TCCC had never used ZERO as a stand-alone trademark and when TCCC did not prove a family of ZERO-inclusive marks.

         IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         This case presents a simple question: Should any company in the business of selling zero-calorie soft drinks have, or be granted, the exclusive right to use the term "zero"?

         Appellee TCCC seeks such an exclusive right, attempting to monopolize the term "zero" throughout the soft drink industry by appending the term "zero" to its well-known soft drink brands in place of the term "diet" and then claiming ZERO as its proprietary mark. In fact, TCCC has already asserted its alleged ZERO mark against at least sixteen other ZERO-inclusive beverage marks, including marks of Royal Crown.[1] Because "zero" has been widely used throughout the soft drink industry for years and must remain free for use, Appellant Royal Crown opposed TCCC's attempt to register its composite ZERO-inclusive trademarks without disclaimer of the term "zero." Royal Crown maintains that TCCC should be required to disclaim "zero" from the sixteen trademark applications at issue here because the term is generic and therefore incapable of achieving trademark status or, if the term is merely descriptive rather than generic, because TCCC has not proved the requisite acquired distinctiveness necessary to establish the term as a trademark.[2]

         In a non-precedential final decision issued May 23, 2016, the Board granted in part and dismissed in part Royal Crown's opposition. More specifically, the Board held that "zero" is not generic for the relevant genus of goods, and that TCCC had established acquired distinctiveness in "zero" in respect of soft drinks and sports drinks but not in respect of energy drinks.

         In concluding that Royal Crown had not sustained its burden to show that "zero" is generic, the Board improperly required Royal Crown to prove that "zero" is the "name of the category of goods" despite cases establishing that terms are generic so long as they refer to a genus of goods, including referring to a key aspect of that genus. The Board also improperly discounted Royal Crown's voluminous evidence showing that "zero" clearly refers to zero-calorie soft drinks and instead relied on evidence of TCCC's sales volumes, despite decades of case law establishing that the type of de facto secondary meaning shown by such sales is irrelevant to whether a term is generic.

         Additionally, in concluding that TCCC had borne its burden to show acquired distinctiveness in the purported ZERO mark, the Board surprisingly concluded that TCCC's use of ZERO as a trademark was exclusive despite uncontroverted record evidence showing that TCCC's ZERO-inclusive marks have coexisted in the marketplace with 32 other ZERO-inclusive soft drink marks. The Board also improperly failed to explain how it determined that TCCC's purported ZERO mark had acquired distinctiveness when TCCC never used ZERO standing along as a mark, and when it used the term across a variety of soft drinks in a manner that did not create a family of marks or otherwise suggest an indication of source.

         The Board's decision turns trademark law on its head, effectively allowing the dominant player in the industry to buy a monopoly in a term that others in the same industry have long been using and must have an ability to continue using. Royal Crown therefore appeals the Board's determinations that (i) "zero" is not generic in reference to the relevant genus of goods; and (ii) that TCCC has established acquired distinctiveness in term "zero" for soft drinks and sports drinks.

         V. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

         A. The Parties

         Appellants Royal Crown Company, Inc. and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. are both part of Dr Pepper Snapple Group ("DPSG"), the third largest refreshment beverage company in North America. (Appx7433-7435.) DPSG manufactures and distributes more than fifty brands of beverages. (Appx7435.) Appellee TCCC is the largest beverage company in the world, named for its flagship soda brand, Coca-Cola. TCCC owns a large portfolio of soft drinks, running the gamut from waters to juices to sports drinks to carbonated soft drinks to energy drinks. (Appx9325-9327.)

         B. Market Use and Understanding of "Zero" in Reference to Soft Drinks

         This case and the current appeal do not concern merely the respective actions and rights of TCCC and Royal Crown. Rather, what "zero" means when used in connection with soft drinks, and who is permitted to use this term, are relevant to the entire soft drink industry as well as the public at large. Just as no entity can claim proprietary rights in the term "diet, " so, too, should no entity have exclusive rights to "zero."

         TCCC's attempt to obtain exclusive ownership of ZERO as part of a soft drink trademark ignores the undisputed fact that TCCC is not the only company that markets a ZERO-named beverage and was not even the first company to do so. No later than 2003, Southern Group Enterprises, Inc. introduced an energy drink named IMPULSE ZERO. (Appx8433, Appx8435.) It was not until a year later, in late 2004, that TCCC first adopted ZERO as part of a soft drink name, when it renamed its DIET SPRITE carbonated soft drink DIET SPRITE ZERO. (Appx9369, Appx9375-9376.) The following year, in mid-2005, both TCCC and Royal Crown introduced additional ZERO-named soft drinks: COCA-COLA ZERO soda in the case of TCCC (Appx9376-9377), and DIET RITE PURE ZERO (as the new name of DIET RITE) in the case of Royal Crown. (Appx7436.)

         Southern Group Enterprises, TCCC and Royal Crown are not alone in their use of ZERO in soft drink names to indicate that the product has zero calories. The record evidence shows 30 other ZERO-named soft drinks, for a total of 32 soft drinks with ZERO-inclusive names that are not products of TCCC, namely:

All Sport Zero
Icee Zero
Rob's Really Good Zero
Arnold Palmer Zero
Impulse Zero
Rockstar Zero
Beast Zero
Jones Whoopass Zero
Rox Zero
Big Red Zero[3]
Margarita Zero
Runa Zero
Blue Sky Zero
Monster Energy Absolutely Zero
Sodastream Zero Cola
Bubba Zero
Monster Energy Zero
Ultra Sqwincher Zero
Caballa Negro Zero
Pomberry Zero
Victory Zero
Clearly Zero
Pre Zero
Virgil's Zero
Diet Crisp Zero
Propel Zero
Vita Rain Zero
Diet Rite Pure Zero
Red Bull Total Zero
Zero Margarita Mix
Holistics Zero
Roaring Lion Zero
(Appx4142-4159, Appx4165-4194, Appx4197-4205, Appx4208-4299, Appx4304-4313, Appx4317-4320, Appx4326-4343, Appx4444-4488, Appx6715-6762, Appx6971-6974, Appx7051-7054, Appx7109-7116, Appx7126-7138, Appx7197-7213, Appx7442-7443, Appx7881-7889, Appx7892-8033.)

         These ZERO-named soft drinks are not small, niche brands. Royal Crown's DIET RITE PURE ZERO soda, for example, has been distributed in nearly 25, 000 retail outlets across the United States, and from 2007 through 2012 alone retail sales volumes equated to roughly 1.8 billion 12-oz. cans of product. (Appx7438-7439, Appx7478-7481.) Similarly, PepsiCo's PROPEL ZERO product, also distributed nationwide, reached sales of ___ in the first two years following the product's launch in 2013. (Appx4268-4284, Appx8301-8302, Appx8316-8317, Appx8371.) Evidence in the record showed that other ZERO-named products on the above list also were sold nationwide in all types of retail outlets, as well as through Internet retailers such as Amazon.com. (Appx4153-4159, Appx4172-4175, Appx4179-4184, Appx4203-4205, Appx4210-4215, Appx4228, Appx4231-4236, Appx4246-4252, Appx4263-4267, Appx4287, Appx4293, Appx4296, Appx4305-4308, Appx4312, Appx4327, Appx4333, Appx6420-6421, Appx6424-6425, Appx6718-6729, Appx6734-6758, Appx7337-7340, Appx7419-7425, Appx8019-8026, Appx8433, Appx8435.)

         In addition to the many soft drink companies that have used a ZERO-inclusive soft drink name, many more have applied to register ZERO-inclusive marks for various types of soft drinks, as evidenced by the 69 third-party trademark applications and registrations for ZERO-inclusive marks for soft drinks that Royal Crown made of record. (Appx4520-4767, Appx4772-4939.) Coupled with the evidence of ZERO-named zero-calorie soft drinks in the market, these multitudes of trademark filings further show common acceptance and use of "zero" as an industry term.

         The wide-scale adoption of ZERO in soft drink names to indicate that the product has zero calories seen over the last dozen or so years did not spring out of whole cloth or out of TCCC's imagination. Rather, the soft drink industry has a history of using "zero" or its numeric equivalent in connection with soft drinks to refer to zero calories. For example, soft drinks producers have long been legally required to use the numeral zero on "Nutritional Facts" panels to designate that a product has zero calories per serving. (Appx3764-3771, Appx3779, Appx3782, Appx3789-3798, Appx3929-3932, Appx4218, Appx5662-5663, Appx6978, Appx6981, Appx6983, Appx6985, Appx6995-7018, Appx7023-7182, Appx7203-7213, Appx7442.) In addition, the term "zero" and its numeric counterpart are widely used in "call-outs" on product labeling or packaging to call consumers' attention to the fact that a particular beverage product has zero calories. (Appx3763, Appx3772-3777, Appx3799-3806, Appx4239, Appx4301, Appx4316, Appx4321-4325, Appx4344-4346, Appx4907, Appx4967-4968, Appx5000, Appx5008, Appx6979-7006, Appx7013-7022, Appx7027-7030, Appx7041-7054, Appx7065-7104, Appx7114, Appx7117-7140, Appx7145-7153, Appx7161-7166.)

         In fact, TCCC's own consumer survey confirms that as far back as November 2004 - before COCA-COLA ZERO was released - consumers already ___ the ___in a soft drink name to ___In late 2004, TCCC conducted consumer research to help it select a name for the product that eventually became COCA-COLA ZERO. (Appx3810.) Of the 900 consumer respondents who saw a bottle with the name COCA-COLA ZERO but no calorie content information, ___ believed that the product would have___(Appx3 816, Appx3819.) Similarly, ___of the respondents viewing a bottle with the name COCA-COLA ZERO but no calorie content information believed that the statement "is ___described the brand___or ___(Appx3822.)

         Since "zero" already was widely used and understood in reference to the calorie content of beverages, the term was an obvious choice within the soft drink industry to replace "diet" when that term started falling out of fashion as having negative connotations. (Appx7437, Appx7444.) By the time of trial below, it was clear that both the soft drink industry and the public at large understood that the term "zero, " just like "diet" before it, refers to a type of beverage or a key aspect of beverages, namely those with zero calories. For example, record evidence shows that both consumers and the media have adopted "zero" as an alternative to "diet" to indicate a category of beverages with zero calories. (Appx4347-4438.)

         Record evidence also shows that the American Beverage Association ("ABA") - a trade organization that represents the beverage industry in the United States and that counts both DPSG and TCCC among its members - views "zero" as a category of beverages. (Appx7259-7260; see also Appx7.) Specifically, in 2012, the ABA developed the following graphic for an advertising campaign, which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.