Home » Copyright/Intellectual Property » Ridicule as a response to claims of trade mark infringement

Ridicule as a response to claims of trade mark infringement

30 October 2018

From the Kluwer Trademark Blog:

O.Mathisen is a local beverage producer in Oslo, mainly known for their product TØYEN COLA. Tøyen is a reference to a multi-cultural part of Oslo. The mark JALLASPRITE is supposedly a mark composed in a similar vein; although JALLA does not have any particular meaning in Norwegian, the term is often associated with immigrant slang. However, whereas COLA in TØYEN COLA is a generic term, SPRITE is not.

The row between Coca Cola and O. Mathisen has apparently gone on for a while, and O.Mathisen recently backtracked, and agreed to stop using JALLASPRITE. So far, so good, one should have thought.

They have now relabelled the product as JALLAXXXXXX. Apparently, they feel censored, and seem to want to get one back at Coca Cola.

Coca Cola are not particularly amused, and have now sued O.Mathisen. Citing the prehistory with JALLASPRITE, Coca Cola claim that the new name JALLAXXXXX makes it look like they have censored O. Mathisen when enforcing their trade mark rights.

. . . .

This reaction is not the first time in Norway (or anywhere else for that matter) that a David when faced with having to give in to a claim of trade mark infringement from a Goliath, tries to get in some shots against Goliath.

In 2005, the Northern Norwegian brewery Mack were forced to change the name of their soda beverage «Frukt champagne» (Fruit champagne) by farmers in France. They changed it first to «Fruktchamp», but this was not enough. They ended up with the name «Frukt sjimpanse» («Fruit Chimpanzee»), with the label containing a drawing of a chimp dressed in a red and white striped shirt and a French-style beret.

Link to the rest at the Kluwer Trademark Blog

Copyright/Intellectual Property

5 Comments to “Ridicule as a response to claims of trade mark infringement”

  1. They aren’t very imaginative. All they had to do was add a little fairy in 8bit pixels to their labels and claim they were talking about the Jalla Sprite, the magical creature that grants water upon request. Boom.

  2. I gave up on trade mark claims making sense when a pizza place had to change it’s name of over 50 years because of the name also being used by a non-pizza business that wants no one else making money under that name, a name I don’t bother watching and won’t give a cent to.

  3. Around the Caribbean and in Puerto Rico specifically Kola Champagne is a generic term for a lighter-flavor, slightly sweeter cola.


    In PR and in the US, the drinks come with the classical caramel color (often a bit lighter tone than Pepsi) but in Mexico, Jamaica, and Central america they ship with an orange-ginger color. (Never tasted those so they might be something else using the name.)

    The original Kola Champagne came from one local company in PR and when it went away sometime in the 80’s, other bottlers started shipping their versions using the name because it had a reputation for quality and it was really good stuff.

    Nobody challenged the use of the name.

    The MACK company should’ve looked further afield.

    • Felix, How does Kola Champagne compare to Champagne de Guaraná?

      • Haven’t tried the latter. I’m not much of a caffeine adict. 🙂

        Kola Champagne’s just a cola soda. It’s to Pepsi like Pepsi to Classic coke. Less sugary aftertaste.

        Goya probably sells it in your region, if you’re curious.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.