By now the commercial world has universally recognized the value of trademarks in domestic and international business. Oftentimes a trademark may be more valuable than the actual products associated with it as the products may have become quite generic. Because of their commercial value, many companies aggressively protect their trademarks against anything that is, or could be, too close or confusing similar. Forming new trademarks is also increasingly difficult as the volume of trademark registrations has grown and marketing departments insist on trademarks that are more descriptive and tend away from the generic. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit treated observers to a glance inside a battle between beverage giants Royal Crown Company Inc. and Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. and The Coca Cola Co. over the word mark, “zero.” Their battle over zero was reported in Royal Crown v. Coca-Cola, No. 2016-2375, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16670 (Fed. Cir. June 20, 2018).

The continuing conflict between Royal Crown and Coca-Cola is instructive on many fronts and worth a case study. The administrative battle started in earnest when Royal Crown filed trademark oppositions against 17 of Coca-Cola’s trademark registration applications for various trademarks containing the term “zero.” An opposition to registration of a trademark that has passed the trademark attorney’s examination can be filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when the trademark is published for opposition. Coca-Cola also opposed two Royal Crown applications on the grounds that they were likely to confuse consumers. In all there were 19 oppositions against most of the goods categorized in Trademark Class 32. Trademark oppositions filed with the USPTO are heard by an administrative tribunal, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board), which is the trademark appeals arm of the USPTO.