| United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 29, 1916 Decided May 22, 1916 |
||||||
| Full case name | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. FORTY BARRELS and Twenty Kegs of Coca Cola, the Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, Complainant. No. 562. | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| An ingredient may be considered "added" regardless of whether a product's formula called for it; whether a specific ingredient is harmful is a jury matter; compounded names (such as Coca-Cola) are only distinctive to the product and not the named ingredients should the name achieve a 'secondary significance' of the product itself. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916), was a federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force the Coca-Cola company to remove caffeine from its product.
Contents |
On March 13, 1911, the government initiated the case under the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, hoping to force The Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its formula by asserting that the product was adulterated and misbranded.[1]
'Adulterated' The allegation of adulteration was, in substance, that the product contained an added poisonous or added deleterious ingredient: caffeine, which might render the product injurious to health.[1]
'Misbranded' It was alleged to be misbranded in that the name "Coca Cola" was a representation of the presence of coca and cola but that the product "contained no coca and little if any cola" and thus was an "imitation" of these substances and was offered for sale under their "distinctive name."[1]
The case title, naming an object ("Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola") as defendant, is an instance of jurisdiction in rem (jurisdiction against a thing). Rather than directly naming The Coca-Cola Company as defendant, the food itself was the subject of the case, with the company only indirectly subject.
'Adulterated' The decision, delivered by Justice Hughes, states that the intent of the word "added" in the context of the Act did not exclude the ingredients of a formula "sold under some fanciful name which would be distinctive" if any were found deleterious and was included to protect natural foodstuffs from prosecution because of constituent poisons rendered inert in their natural state (such as fusel oil in liquor); furthermore, it states that the introduction of caffeine in the later stages of syrup production made it an "added ingredient" in any sense of the term and the removal of harmful ingredients, even if vital to the identity of the product, did not constitute adulteration.[1]
'Misbranded' Of the misbranding charge, the Court held neither had the government proved that "coca cola" was a descriptive name nor had the Coca-Cola Company proved it was not; making both of these assertions irrelevant; thus the Court found that the issue of whether the product contained any coca or cola had not been settled.[1]
Details The case was returned to the lower court for retrial to determine the remaining, factual matters; Justice McReynolds abstained.[1]
Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, two bills were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1912 to amend the Pure Food and Drug Act, adding caffeine to the list of "habit-forming" and "deleterious" substances, which must be listed on a product's label.