• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Coca Cola is in BIG trouble...

DaPhatConductor

TRIBE Promoter
Oh MAN! This is golden! too fucking funny! The prayers of the deceased Columbian Coke workers have been answered!

http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/synop.html

Coca-Karma: The Very Secret Battle of Bob Kolody vs. Coca-Cola (KO)

Introduction: Coca-Karma Synopsis



At the heart of the story is an independent marketing consultant named Bob Kolody who claims he owns the copyright to an image that has been used on Coke Classic cans since 1993. The basic facts of the case are as follows:


Back in 1989, Kolody pitched Simon Marketing (Coke's ad agency) on a game concept that involved a graphic collusion of Coca-Cola and automobile memorabilia. Kolody heard nothing back from Simon but, nine months later, learned that aspects of his campaign were being disseminated through Coke's new Cherry Coke can designs. When Kolody attempted to discuss the matter with Simon's executives he was rebuffed and they claimed to have lost his story-boards.


Even more interesting is that at the same time that Kolody was pitching Simon, Coke failed to renew their copyright on a very famous image that appeared on their first soda can in 1961: the 'contour bottle on the Coca-Cola can' image. When Coke failed to renew the 1961 copyright (as they must do after 28 years) Kolody, the suit claims, became the de facto rights holder because he had created a derivative work of the image for his pitch with Simon.


This was all unbeknownst to Kolody, who was still trying to fight Simon on his infringement suit.


Then, in 1993, Coke resurrected the 'contour bottle' image for their Classic Coke cans and, the suit documents, filed a fraudulent copyright application in order to protect it. This is the legal crux of the case and demands elaboration. A fundamental precept of intellectual property law stipulates that an entity is not allowed to file for a copyright on an image that has already been published and then released into the public domain or adopted by someone else. In the case of the 'contour bottle', Coke either forgot to renew their copyright or did not understand the law. When they re-filed in 1993, the copyright office warned them that to file for a copyright which has already been published is fraud. Coke went ahead and did it regardless.


In 1994 Kolody saw the 'contour bottle' on a Coke Classic Can in a Chicago airport and realized what that Coke had now adopted another of his original concepts. For three years he could not get a lawyer to file his case against Coca-Cola and Simon Marketing.


Finally, in 1997, he got John De Camp - a one-time Nebraska state senator and friend of former CIA-head Bill Colby - to file. But De Camp could not afford to continue on contingency so Kolody was forced to forge on pro se (without legal representation). Kolody learned the law from every conceivable source and fought his case in court against one of the country's top intellectual property lawyers (Jerold Jacover). Using every imaginable legal dirty trick, Coca-Cola's legal team hampered Kolody's case and successfully avoided publicity on what has evolved into a $4 billion lawsuit. Furthermore, Judge Blanche Manning (the judge in this case) refused to compel Coca-Cola to demonstrate that they held the legal registrations of copyright on the contour bottle. When Kolody attained the application independently from the U.S, copyright office, Manning would not allow him introduce the document as new evidence. This was a crushing blow to Kolody who had finally discovered proof that Coke failed to renew its copyright and then filed a fraudulent copyright application to protect themselves.


In 1999, Kolody successfully retained renowned Arkansas federal attorney Dan Ivy to fight his case. As soon as he came onto the scene, Ivy discovered a series of judicial improprieties emanating from the bench. In response, he filed several motions of 'judicial perjury' - a motion that accuses the judge of committing fraud upon the court in her blatantly favorable rulings for Coca-Cola. This is the first time in Chicago judicial history that a lawyer has leveled such a serious charge against a federal judge. But Judge Manning, instead of stepping aside to have her improprieties assessed by an independent Judge, ruled on these charges herself - a practice that defies the principles of Anglo-Saxon law.


What happened next is like a plot from a John Grisham novel. After Judge Manning dismissed Kolody's lawsuit with a summary judgment, Ivy moved the case to the Appellate Court. But, in an apparent effort to censure the crusading attorney for his conduct, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his entrance to the bar, leaving Kolody without an attorney. What makes this even more intriguing is that all eleven Judges of the Appellate met in a rare, closed-door 'en banc' hearing to deny his request and offered no elaboration for their decision. After filing a motion for clarification of their ruling (under the 14th Amendment), Ivy, was denied 'en banc' a second time and given no reason given for the refusal.


There have also been a number of suspicious coincidences surrounding Kolody's case. Most shocking was that Kolody's own local counsel, Daniel Hanley, admitted under questioning to have a sister who was a major media buyer for Coca-Cola in the United States and that he had been feeding her information of Kolody's legal strategy. What's more, an affidavit was filed by famed court reformer Sherman Skolnick (who has had more judges imprisoned and disbarred for judicial misconduct than any other person in U.S. history) that ties Judge Manning to major Chicago underworld figure William F. Cellini and asserts that her Judgeship was bought through a corrupt system of dealings. Both of these charges were made in a heated court hearing that saw a group of six armed police officers enter the courtroom. To date, Hanley has not been sanctioned for his admission and neither Judge Manning nor Bill Cellini have refuted the claims made in Skolnick's affidavit.


Interesting, too, is that Coke has disregarded the case in their SEC filings. Initially this may sound innocuous, but not when you remember that Coke's entire business is the sale of their syrup formula and licensing of their logo to bottlers. This means that the bottlers have been paying license fees to a fraudulent copyright owner for seven years. Combine this with the fact that tensions between bottlers and Coke reached an all-time high last year when Coke was accused, in a major lawsuit, of dumping syrup on their bottlers in order to bolster a sagging fourth quarter earnings report.


The case is currently being appealed to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (supervisor of the 7th Circuit) under a special application for 'chamber business'. This is especially dramatic considering the fact that it was Justice Stevens who, when he was a young lawyer on the 7th Circuit, headed up a special committee that presided over what became known as the 'biggest judicial bribery scandal in United States history'. The allegations surfaced publicly when, in 1969, a maverick public crusader by the name of Sherman Skolnick brought charges against a group of Judges for bribery.


Due to the complexity of this case and the verifiable evidence of judicial misconduct on the part of Coca-Cola's lawyers and Judge Manning, we recommend that you take the time to read the entire story. We are confident that you will be neither bored nor disappointed with the dramatic recounting of this tale.
 

DSV

TRIBE Promoter
I hate to say it, but this goes back to that whole secret society thing. There are people in various positions of power who are sworn to cover each other's asses, and that is why this kind of shit goes on.

This may sound paranoid, but it doesn't it seem completely unreal that this kind of thing can go on. How else can this be explained. Anyone?
 

DaPhatConductor

TRIBE Promoter
Coke is gonna take it HARD for this one though. Sherman Skolnick is a real badass when it comes to taking these fuckers down.

It's so funny that it's over such a stupid little thing as this, but they are honestly and truly fucked now. I love it!
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
The entire story is quite fascinating.

I don't know how non-political stories end up in the politics forum. Must be part of that "put anything that requires thought in THIS corner" conditioning.
 
tribe magazine legacy photo exhibit

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The consitution doesn't mean shit if it aint enforced by those sworn to uphold it.

Doesn't surprise me.
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
are you guys serious???

did we read the same article? i read that article and thought (i) kolody is full of shit and (ii) the guy who wrote the article is full of shit.

it sounds like this kolody guy is trying to get a WINDFALL here.

the success of coca-cola since 1993 is due to its MARKETING EFFORTS, not the choice of a design that appeared briefly on cherry coke cans. but let's leave that point ASIDE for now.

kolody's claim should be against SIMON MARKETING for using "aspects of his campaign" without his permission. his claim, IF he is able to successfully prove that simon marketing STOLE parts of his design, should be for the money that coca-cola paid to simon marketing to come up with the design. nothing more.

now, kolody is trying to claim ownership over coca-cola's 'contour bottle' design - a design which kolody had NO ROLE in creating - due to an obscure piece of u.s. copyright law that may or may not be interpreted correctly in the article.

there is a REASON why this kolody character could not find ANY lawyer to represent him for over 3 years. think about it. how hard is it - really - to find a lawyer in the u.s.? obviously, the lawyers that he went to did not think he had a case with any merit.

common law jurisdictions - like the u.s. - have an equitable principle against "unjust enrichment".

in a case like this, it would be RIDICULOUS to give kolody ownership of coca-cola's contour bottle design.

now they are arguing that all the judges - at the federal and now the appellate level - who ruled against this guy must have been BRIBED?

i do not know the reasons for the bribery *allegations*, but just because this decision is being APPEALED to a judge that acted in a judicial bribery scandel in the '60s does NOT mean that (i) there is any merit in the appeal or (ii) that any bribing actually took place.

the article is written to try to make a big deal of the fact that this new appeals judge supervised a committee on judicial bribery in the '60s when that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - AT ALL - to do with this particular case.
 
Last edited:

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
Did you read the whole case story Will? Not talking about the exerpt above.
no, i did not. the article should HIGHLIGHT the most suspicious parts of the whole situation, should it not?

if it does not even do that, why would i waste my time?

who is being sleazy here? kolody who is trying to claim ownership of something that he had no role in creating? or coca-cola for going about its business?

do you REALLY think that kolody's "graphic collusion of coca-cola and automobile memorabilia" should entitle him to OWNERSHIP of coca-cola's 'countour bottle' design? (of course not, and no judge would think sp either.)

if kolody's claim had any merit whatsoever, it would not have taken him over 3 years to find a lawyer.

before you argue that lawyers would not want to take on coca-cola, (i) that is not true (most trademark lawyers would love to take on coca-cola for the publicity alone IF the case had any merit) and (ii) he could not even find a lawyer to take on simon marketing which would not have the same deep pockets.

where is the evidence that simon marketing even used "aspects of his design" anyway? are there pictures available in the article so that we can judge for ourselves?

sorry, man, but that entire article is a load of bullshit.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

DaPhatConductor

TRIBE Promoter
Look, the reason he has that claim is that Coka FAILED TO RENEW THEIR COPYRIGHT and he had the first derivitave work, thus making him the legal owner. Coke then renewed the copyright fraudulently and illegally.

Sure it's not the most brilliant idea, and sure he didn't think of it first, but because Coke fucked up he's the legal owner of that design.

It's hilarious!
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Klubmasta Will


where is the evidence that simon marketing even used "aspects of his design" anyway? are there pictures available in the article so that we can judge for ourselves?

I'va actually seen the coke modern memorabilia campaign that has incorporated the above automobile theme specifically in places that have Coke exclusive licensing.

I don't think the claim is far fetched at all. I believe that sometimes the law indirectly assumes the innocence of big industry because of the possibility that they are big targets, therefore the accuser gets less than a fair share when going up against them. In the case of him being granted the design of the contour bottle, it may be a technicality, but a technicality that is backed by law and the technicality was not only brought to the attention of Coke, but the circumstance in which it was allowed to come into play was in control of Cocca Cola Inc. Regardless of it’s obscurity, if Coke Inc was operating on the assumption of an "unjust enrichment" ruling in their favor, they should fire their lawyers for incompetence. Their whole point is to secure the intellectual property rights of the corporation, they cannot automatically assume that because they have a history that they are immune to lawsuits over copyright.
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by DaPhatConductor
Look, the reason he has that claim is that Coka FAILED TO RENEW THEIR COPYRIGHT and he had the first derivitave work, thus making him the legal owner. Coke then renewed the copyright fraudulently and illegally.

Sure it's not the most brilliant idea, and sure he didn't think of it first, but because Coke fucked up he's the legal owner of that design.

It's hilarious!
that is the argument of kolody and the guerrilla news guy.

coca-cola's corporate and intellectual property lawyers, the federal judges who heard and dismissed the case, the appeals judges who heard and dismissed the appeal and every single lawyer that kolody approached over a 3 year period obviously all disagree.

as for the guerrilla news guy, i would question the legal knowledge of anyone who refers to "legal dirty tricks" and "the principles of anglo-saxon law". :)
 
tribe magazine legacy photo exhibit

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Will, there's a LOT more to the story than what's illustrated above.

Yes, it's a tedious read that takes some time, but it does give you the context by which Kolody is suing. Coca-cola is definitely not coming clean in this case.
 

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
I'va actually seen the coke modern memorabilia campaign that has incorporated the above automobile theme specifically in places that have Coke exclusive licensing.
that's great, but have you seen kolody's designs? that would be the evidence that simon marketing stole "aspects of" kolody's work.

are there pictures of kolody's original designs so that readers can compare the designs to determine - for themselves - whether there are similarities? surely, that would be an easy thing to put in that kind of article.

Originally posted by Boss Hog
Will, there's a LOT more to the story than what's illustrated above.
come on, man, you can't just reply to all my comments by saying that "there's more to the story". howbout rebutting some of the points/questions in my replies?
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
because truthfully I can't be fucking bothered to argue lately. Haven't you noticed? It's become as fun as scarifying my cock.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Klubmasta Will

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
because truthfully I can't be fucking bothered to argue lately. Haven't you noticed? It's become as fun as scarifying my cock.
don't let the pundits win. if you won't fight the power, who will?

:)

ps. i have been visiting this board less and less as well lately.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
One also has to look at what kolody was asked to do. If he was asked to show creatives showing coca cola in association with classic cars than the idea was never his to begin with and there may have been 10 others with the same ideas that all presented similar creatives.

If I ask for flyers from 4 designers and I specifically tell them it must by x size the following colours incorporating these 5 specific elements and this logo. I would expect all 4 to be fairly similar. If I go with artist 2 and artist 3 thinks that he got ripped off as long as I can prove that artist 3 didn't see artist 2's work until after the decision was made than really there is no legal argument.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
As for the suggestion that lawyers wouldn't hear his case out of the sheer ridiculousness of it, think that's false. The realm of intellectual property law yields a good amount of corporate clientele, therefore it's perfectly plausible to suggest that for intellectual property lawyers (and any lawyer for that matter) to take on this case, whether or not they win or lose, they are subjecting themselves to some risk of being alienated from a the very client base that is their bread and butter. Weigh that against the potential short-term and limited benefit of publicity or monetary reward and it's easier to see why it's more sensible to reject rather than accept a case like this.
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
Does anyone actually BELIEVE that coca-cola would FORGET about their frikkin' trademark?

Honestly, get a grip.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top