Sindell v Abbott Laboratories and Coca-Cola Co v Koke Co of America - Assignment Example

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims simply because she could not identify the company that distributed the drug. She appealed to the Supreme Court of California, which reversed the sentence.

The legal question presented to the Supreme Court was if it was known that a certain group of defendants was negligent but not clear specifically who was directly responsible, can a plaintiff sue the main companies involved as per the market share statistics? The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff could recover against the manufacturers that are already known concerning the market share concept. The Supreme Court added that for such a case to suffice, the plaintiff must present a number of the main distributors. However, if the defendant could prove that they were not responsible for the harm caused, then they could be dismissed from the case. The reasoning used here was that the defendants should not be let off simply because the plaintiff does not have a way of identifying those responsible. In addition, in such sensitive cases as medication, the consumer is deemed helpless to protect themselves from any harm that may come from the drugs that they take. The defendants would also be in a better position to bear the cost of an injury that results from the manufacturing of a defective drug.

1. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America
This was a trademark infringement case where Coca-Cola Company was seeking to enjoin Koke Company of America from continuing to use the word ‘Koke’ in their products. On the defense, Koke maintained that using Coca-Cola's name in its brands the Coca-Cola Company represented the usage of cocaine in its products. From the side of the Coca-Cola Company, it should retain the usage of this name. This came as a result of increased sales by the Coca-Cola Company implying that this company did not want to share any work which sounded similar to the one it used (Clarkson et al. 157). The case was ruled against Coca-Cola Company, which appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal question presented before the Supreme Court was whether the word in dispute could be used by any other company especially considering that a radio advert could not show the spelling difference. The Supreme Court determined that this word could not be used by any other company irrespective of its spelling. The reasoning behind this ruling was that when the word coke was read aloud, it was associated with the Coca-Cola Company. This implied that any other company using a word with a similar pronunciation could not be allowed. Therefore, this name was reserved for the Coca-Cola Company. Read More