A Brooklyn poster company altered Coca-Cola’s distinctive red-and-white script advertisement to read "Enjoy Cocaine" and sold over 100,000 copies at $2 each before facing a lawsuit from Coca-Cola Co. The company also changed "Trade-Mark ®" to "Raid-Mark ®" on a revised filing with the Copyright Office, which a federal judge viewed as evidence of predatory intent. Coca-Cola presented affidavits showing consumer complaints nationwide, including calls to a local bottler and a TV station, with some callers attributing the poster directly to Coca-Cola and threatening a boycott. The court applied a consumer-confusion standard focused on the ordinary purchaser, finding the evidence of confusion overwhelming and concluding the poster infringed Coca-Cola’s trademark rights. The opinion noted the historical fact that Coca-Cola’s name derives from the coca leaf and stated that the beverage no longer contains pharmacologically active cocaine. The case is Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

Original article (brooklyn) (boycott) (lawsuit) (parody) (counterfeiting) (scandal) (controversy) (outrage) (entitlement) (activism) (clickbait) (protest)

Overall assessment: the article mainly reports a legal decision and historical facts but offers almost no practical help for a typical reader. It tells what happened in a trademark infringement case and gives some supporting details, yet it fails to provide clear, usable steps, teach deeper reasoning about trademark law or consumer protection, or translate the outcome into guidance an ordinary person can act on.

Actionable information The article contains no step‑by‑step instructions a reader could follow. It describes a company altering an ad, selling posters, and being sued, and it summarizes the court’s finding of consumer confusion. But it does not tell a reader what to do if they are an artist, small business, consumer, or bottler faced with a similar situation. It provides no checklists, templates, or concrete procedures (for example, how to assess whether a parody or altered trademark is legally defensible, how to respond to a trademark demand letter, or how consumers should report misleading advertising). Therefore a reader looking for actionable help will find nothing practical to try immediately.

Educational depth The piece conveys a few surface facts: the altered slogan, sales numbers, consumer complaints, the court’s use of the ordinary‑purchaser confusion standard, and a historical note that Coca‑Cola’s name derived from the coca leaf and no longer contains active cocaine. But it does not explain the legal standards in any depth, such as the multi‑factor tests courts use in trademark infringement cases, how parody or free‑speech defenses can operate, or why the “ordinary purchaser” standard matters in practice. The article offers no insight into how the evidence presented (affidavits, consumer calls, changed filings) maps onto legal analysis or how similar evidence could be gathered or countered. Any numbers given (over 100,000 posters at $2 each; many calls) are presented as facts without explanation of their legal significance (e.g., how sales volume or consumer complaints influence remedies or likelihood of confusion findings). In short, it remains descriptive rather than explanatory.

Personal relevance For most readers the article has limited personal relevance. It may interest people who follow trademark law, advertising, or First Amendment issues, or those concerned about brand reputation. But for ordinary consumers the story does not affect safety, health, or routine decisions. For artists, marketers, or small businesses considering using or modifying famous marks, the case is potentially important, but the article does not translate the ruling into practical guidance they could use to evaluate their own risk. Thus its relevance is narrow and indirect.

Public service function The article does little in the way of public service. It does not provide warnings about how to avoid infringing marks, how to report misleading advertising, or how consumers can verify whether a product or ad is legitimate. It reads primarily as a recounting of events intended to inform or entertain rather than to help the public act responsibly.

Practical advice quality Because the article gives virtually no practical advice, there is nothing to judge for realism or clarity. Any implied lesson—that altering a famous trademark can invite litigation and evidence of consumer confusion can be decisive—is useful in concept but not developed into steps a reader can take. The article misses the opportunity to provide realistic, easy‑to‑follow precautions for creators, resellers, or consumers.

Long‑term impact The piece focuses on a concrete historical incident and does not offer strategies to help readers plan ahead, avoid similar disputes, or change behavior in durable ways. It does not explain how businesses can design marketing to reduce legal risk, or how consumers can protect themselves from misleading versions of known brands.

Emotional and psychological impact The article may provoke curiosity or mild shock at the “Enjoy Cocaine” image and the scope of sales, but it does not supply calm, constructive guidance. Readers are left with an interesting anecdote but no tools to respond to similar situations or to reduce anxiety about brand misuse.

Clickbait or sensationalism The story’s altered slogan and the idea of mass‑sold “Enjoy Cocaine” posters are naturally sensational. The article relies on that hook but does not appear to overpromise conclusions beyond the court’s ruling. Still, it emphasizes the shocking element without using it to teach or to provide practical context.

Missed opportunities The article misses many chances to teach or guide. It could have explained how trademark infringement is evaluated in more detail, how parody or artistic expression sometimes receives protection under the First Amendment and when it does not, what types of evidence are persuasive to courts, how creators can conduct a basic risk assessment before using famous marks, and how consumers and companies can respond to misleading ads. It could also have suggested straightforward resources (e.g., contacting a consumer protection agency or a lawyer) or given simple templates for documenting consumer confusion.

Concrete, usable guidance the article failed to provide If you are an artist, small business owner, or marketer thinking about using, altering, or referencing a well‑known trademark, first ask whether your work is likely to cause ordinary consumers to think the trademark owner sponsored or endorsed it. If the answer might be “yes,” avoid using the exact mark in commercial advertising or on products you sell. Keep visual elements and wording sufficiently distinct so a reasonable buyer would not assume affiliation.

If you are a creator who intends a work as parody or commentary, clearly present it in a context that signals commentary rather than commercial endorsement—avoid selling the work as an official product of the trademark owner, and include disclaimers and context that make the critical or satirical nature obvious. Remember that disclaimers are helpful but not always decisive in court.

If you receive a cease‑and‑desist letter or other legal threat about trademark use, do not ignore it. Preserve all relevant materials (design files, sales records, communications), limit further distribution of the disputed items until you get advice, and consult an attorney who handles intellectual property to assess your risk and options. If you cannot consult a lawyer immediately, stop further sales and document any buyer communications and marketing that show how the item was presented.

If you are a consumer who thinks an ad or product misrepresents a brand or is dangerous, document what you saw (screenshots, photos, receipts) and contact the brand’s official customer service and your local consumer protection agency. Reporting misleading advertising can help brands correct mistakes and protect other consumers.

To assess risk in general without specialist help, compare the contested use to three simple tests: would an average buyer reasonably believe the trademark owner sponsored or endorsed the item; does the contested use exploit the mark’s reputation to sell unrelated goods or services; and is the use primarily commercial rather than purely expressive? If the answers lean toward “yes,” the risk of legal action and an adverse outcome is higher.

These are general, common‑sense steps and do not replace legal advice, but they give practical actions you can take now to reduce exposure and make better decisions in situations like the one described.

"enjoy cocaine" — The altered slogan uses a strong shock word that pushes feeling and tries to mock Coca-Cola’s brand. This phrase favors the poster-maker’s provocation and hides the company’s actual message by swapping a legal product name with an illegal drug. It steers readers to react emotionally instead of thinking about trademark law. It helps the poster-maker’s stunt and harms Coca‑Cola’s image.

"Raid‑Mark ®" — Changing "Trade‑Mark ®" to "Raid‑Mark ®" is a word play that tries to make the change look witty but also signals deliberate mockery. The revised filing phrase points to intentional disrespect for Coca‑Cola’s rights and supports the judge’s view of predatory intent. It frames the defendant as hostile rather than accidental. It hides any neutral or accidental explanation for the change.

"predatory intent" — That phrase is a strong accusation chosen by the court description and signals hostile motive. It frames the company as aggressive and harmful rather than maybe misguided. The wording helps Coca‑Cola’s legal position by labeling the conduct as malicious. It does not show any balancing language that would soften the claim.

"evidence of confusion overwhelming" — The text uses an absolute-sounding phrase that pushes weight toward Coca‑Cola’s side. Saying confusion was "overwhelming" amplifies the court’s finding in strong terms and nudges the reader to accept the trademark harm as decisive. It favors the plaintiff’s claim and leaves little room for doubt. It does not present counter-evidence or nuance.

"consumer-confusion standard focused on the ordinary purchaser" — This phrase sets a legal framing that narrows which opinions matter. It favors the idea that everyday consumers, not critics or experts, determine trademark harm. That choice of framing can help Coca‑Cola because ordinary purchasers are more likely to be misled. It hides or downplays alternative standards or perspectives about harm.

"affidavits showing consumer complaints nationwide" — Using the word "nationwide" expands the scope to sound large and serious. It pushes the reader to see the harm as widespread and significant. This choice of wording helps Coca‑Cola’s case by implying broad public impact. It does not show how many complaints or their content beyond examples.

"some callers attributing the poster directly to Coca‑Cola and threatening a boycott" — The clause highlights angry reactions and frames the defendant’s act as causing reputational and economic harm. It uses charged words like "threatening a boycott" to amplify harm. That wording supports Coca‑Cola’s position and evokes public backlash. It does not present any contrary public responses.

"beverage no longer contains pharmacologically active cocaine" — This historical clarification uses neutral language but implicitly anticipates confusion about Coca‑Cola’s past. It distances the company from illegal drugs and supports Coca‑Cola’s defense against the altered slogan. The wording favors Coca‑Cola’s image by denying current harmful ingredients. It does not explain how consumers might still be misled.

"Coca‑Cola’s distinctive red‑and‑white script advertisement" — Describing the script as "distinctive" is evaluative language that supports trademark protection. It frames Coca‑Cola’s mark as recognizable and valuable, helping the plaintiff. The adjective pushes the idea that the mark deserves legal respect. It leaves out any argument that the design is generic or unprotectable.

"sold over 100,000 copies at $2 each" — Presenting the exact sales number and price emphasizes commercial scale and intent to profit. This phrasing supports the view that the act was not a small prank but a profitable enterprise. It helps Coca‑Cola’s case by showing economic impact and the defendant’s gain. It does not present any mitigating context about proceeds or purpose.

The text conveys several clear emotions through its choice of words and the situations it describes. One prominent emotion is alarm or concern, evident in phrases about consumer complaints, calls to a local bottler and a TV station, callers threatening a boycott, and the court’s application of a consumer-confusion standard that finds the evidence "overwhelming." This alarm is strong: words like "complaints," "threatening," and "overwhelming" heighten the sense that many people were upset and that the problem was serious. The purpose of this concern is to make the reader see the altered poster as having caused real public upset and tangible harm, guiding the reader to sympathize with Coca-Cola’s position and to accept the court’s decision as necessary. A related emotion is indignation or disapproval directed at the poster company, signaled by legal framing—"facing a lawsuit," "infringed Coca-Cola’s trademark rights"—and by the judge viewing an altered filing as "evidence of predatory intent." The strength of this disapproval is moderate to strong because legal terms and the phrase "predatory intent" cast the company’s behavior as unfair and deliberate. This serves to push the reader toward a negative judgment of the company’s actions and to justify legal intervention. There is also a defensive, protective emotion tied to Coca-Cola, reflected in the company’s presentation of affidavits and the court’s protective stance over trademark rights; words such as "presented affidavits" and the court’s finding suggest a controlled, assertive effort to defend reputation. This emotion functions to build trust in Coca-Cola’s response and to portray the company as rightfully safeguarding consumers and its brand. A subtler emotion is embarrassment or reputational risk, hinted at by callers attributing the poster directly to Coca-Cola and the mention that some people threatened a boycott; the idea that the public might believe Coca-Cola endorsed "Enjoy Cocaine" implies worry about damage to image. The strength here is moderate, and it helps the reader understand the stakes behind the legal action. Finally, there is a factual, almost corrective tone when the opinion notes the historical origin of Coca-Cola’s name and that the beverage no longer contains pharmacologically active cocaine. This carries a mild reassuring emotion aimed at dispelling misunderstanding and calming any lingering shock; the tone is measured and its purpose is to clear up historical confusion while reinforcing that current product safety and branding are distinct from the provocative poster. The writer uses several rhetorical tools to increase these emotional effects: repetition of the ties between the poster and public reaction (multiple instances of complaints and calls), legal and forceful vocabulary ("lawsuit," "affidavits," "infringed," "predatory intent") that intensifies disapproval and urgency, and juxtaposition of a provocative slogan ("Enjoy Cocaine") with corrective facts about the product’s content, which creates a stark contrast designed to alarm then reassure. These tools steer attention to harm done and to deliberate wrongdoing, encouraging the reader to accept legal and corrective responses as justified. Overall, emotional language and legal framing work together to produce concern for consumer confusion, disapproval of the poster company’s conduct, sympathy for Coca-Cola’s defensive measures, and reassurance about the product’s present nature.