• Home
  • News
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia
RetailCoca-Cola

Coke’s Fight For the Right to ‘Zero’ Could Soon Be Over

By
Jonathan Chew
Jonathan Chew
By
Jonathan Chew
Jonathan Chew
February 10, 2016, 10:09 AM ET
Coca Cola Zero and Coca Cola Diet can boxes in a store, Coca
Coca Cola Zero and Coca Cola Diet can boxes in a store, Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines throughout the world. (Photo by Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images)Photograph by Roberto Machado Noa — LightRocket via Getty Images

Nearly 13 years after Coca-Cola tried to trademark the rights to “zero”, we could finally have a winner.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could be set to rule on whether Coke (KO) or Dr Pepper Snapple Group (DPS) can register the exclusive rights to the “zero” label for their products, people familiar with the case have told The Wall Street Journal.

If Coke wins, they could sue imitators who have infringed on their usage of the word, which is featured in their Coke Zero line of soft drinks. If Coke loses, it opens the door for other competitors to use the word, such as Dr Pepper’s Diet Rite Pure Zero. A ruling could come before the summer, reported The Journal.

The stakes were highlighted on Tuesday in Coca-Cola’s annual earnings report. The company reported a 6% growth for Coke Zero in sparkling beverage volumes worldwide, which offset a 6% decline in Diet Coke and Coke Light.

The fight for the right to use “zero” began on March 4, 2005, when Coca-Cola filed a trademark registration for “Coca-Cola Zero.” The application saw a challenge from Dr Pepper in 2007, who argued that the word “zero” is merely a short-form version indicating zero calories, according to The Journal.

Dr Pepper also listed 32 “zero” beverage brands not owned by Coke, including Monster Energy Zero Ultra, Virgil’s Zero and Arnold Palmer Zero, added The Journal. In response, Coke has argued that “zero” is “exclusively associated” with its products because of “extensive advertising, promotion and sales,” according to filings.

PepsiCo (PEP) also opposed Coke’s application to the word in 2007, and U.K. Regulators ruled in PepsiCo’s favor.

About the Author
By Jonathan Chew
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Global 500
  • Coins2Day 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Coins2Day Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Coins2Day Brand Studio
  • Coins2Day Analytics
  • Coins2Day Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Coins2Day
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Coins2Day Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Coins2Day Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.