X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Last year lawyer Michael Kline told two brand managers for Coca-Cola Classic that they could sue their company’s calorie-free soda brand, Coca-Cola Zero, for “taste infringement.” Really. And it’s all on camera, too. But lest you think Kline should be sent back to law school — where they teach that class about how it’s a bad idea to sue your own company for nonexistent intellectual property violations — remember not to believe everything you see on television, YouTube, or even a Coke Web site. Those are the venues where you can watch Kline, a senior litigation counsel for intellectual property at Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Co., and some of his equally unwitting colleagues listen to the bizarre grievances of a pair of brand managers who claim that no-calorie Coke Zero tastes so much like sugary Coke Classic that they should be able to bring some kind of legal action. In the commercials, Kline and fellow in-house lawyers Elizabeth Finn Johnson and James Koelemay Jr., as well as outside counsel Robert Cowan, react with varying degrees of amusement, disbelief, and, in Johnson’s case, incredulous outrage at the suggestion of the brand managers. “You don’t have valid claim!” Johnson shouts at one point. What the lawyers didn’t know at the time was that the litigious brand managers were really improvisational actors Bob Beuth and Bill Glass of Los Angeles, that they were being filmed, and that this was all part of a marketing campaign to promote Coke Zero. In the old days, the lawyers would have been victims of Allen Funt’s “Candid Camera.” In today’s language, the Coke lawyers were “punk’d.” SELLING TO GUYS The resulting ads have run during “American Idol” and the NCAA basketball tournament. Three video clips of Coke lawyers and one of an actor posing as a lawyer are viewable on YouTube. The ad scheme is the brainchild of Coke’s marketing team and Miami advertising agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky, which also employed “viral” marketing — using a social network such as YouTube in the hopes of getting viewers to pass an offbeat, indirectly commercial video along to friends — on behalf of Burger King. In Burger King’s case, the Web site, in which a man in a chicken suit follows viewers’ commands to dance, jump, and so on — all to make the point that at Burger King, you can get chicken any way you like it — garnered between 15 million and 20 million hits in its first week online, according to Wired.com. Coke’s legal theme doesn’t stop with the video clips. The Coke Zero Web site offers surfers the opportunity to “Sue a Friend” for various forms of taste infringement, including stealing one’s ringtone and using the same pickup lines. It also offers a “Ruin This Man’s Day” button, by which viewers can electronically harass an image of an already harassed-looking lawyer as he drafts litigation that would force Coke Zero to “stop using real Coca-Cola taste.” The goal of all this legal shtick: to revamp Coke Zero’s image. The drink has a new black label and is being marketed toward men in the 18-to-34-year-old age bracket — men who might not drink Diet Coke because a “diet” drink is perceived as feminine, but who could be attracted by the humorous marketing of the calorie-free Coke Zero. Susan McDermott, a spokeswoman for Coca-Cola North America, says that when the drink first launched, ads focused on selling a brand image and the drink’s “personality,” then began looking for a way to show that Coke Zero offered the taste of real Coke without the calories. “As they looked at different ways to expand the campaign, they thought, maybe we should sue ourselves,” she says. �IT’S A NOVEL THEORY’ When Coke marketing execs decided on the litigation theme, they tapped the previously unidentified acting skills of James Dudukovich, Coke’s marketing counsel for North America. His job was to persuade six of Coke’s in-house attorneys and two outside lawyers to offer legal advice to a pair of brand managers who wanted to sue their own company. “As you might imagine, when the general concept was presented, I got very nervous, because it’s a sensitive thing to execute,” Dudukovich says, ticking off potential problems — fraud, ethical conduct issues, code-of-business obligations. The end result: Dudukovich targeted unsuspecting lawyers who he thought would provide amusing on-camera reactions while — mostly — keeping their cool. He then prepped the actors, educating them about legal terms, hot-button issues, and the practice areas of the lawyers they’d be duping. Kline says he was lured in when Dudukovich asked him to meet with some brand managers on an IP issue. Dudukovich offered few details, saying only that he didn’t want to “prejudice” his colleague’s views. Kline was directed to a conference room he’d never seen before — a room, he’d find out later, that had a large two-way mirror and a fake panel on one wall. “To be quite honest with you, these guys came across as very legitimate,” Kline says, recalling that the actors wore company I.D. badges. Though he later got suspicious, he says, “they were pretty good at selling a ludicrous proposition.” His video clip starts when one of the actors says, “So do you think we as the Coke brand would have a case against the Coke Zero brand because they’ve infringed upon our taste?” There’s a long pause, while Klein arranges and rearranges his face and chews his lip. Finally, suppressing a smile, he says, “It’s a novel theory.” The actor presses on: “What can we do . . . to really bring this to light and shut it down?” Kline says that he responded, “Now we really wouldn’t want to do this, but just for fun here in our own four walls, here’s what we could do.” But the video clip shows only his next statement: “One of the things that I would do is consider possibly threatening these folks with a preliminary injunction.” Later, Kline asks, “What would your proposed endgame be?” Actor: “That [the Coke Zero brand team] were crushed and that their director . . . was in the fetal position under the copier, crying. Crying.” The segment ends with a close-up of Kline’s incredulous face. [EXPLETIVE BLEEPED OUT] Though Kline keeps his cool, others have a little more trouble hiding their feelings. Koelemay, the company’s senior counsel for bottler relations, looks as if he’s stifling a laugh throughout the video. Trying to dodge the intracompany suit idea, he suggests the managers could sue Coke Zero managers personally, “but neither Jim [Dudukovich] nor I can represent you.” The segment featuring Johnson, senior counsel for litigation and employment, proves she doesn’t suffer fools lightly. It opens with one of the actors, having explained that he’s concerned about taste infringement, asking, “What would be the equivalent to a corporate kick in the [expletive bleeped out]?” Johnson gets increasingly frustrated as the managers press her for ways to sue another part of the company. “This product is a hundred and some years old,” says one, pointing to the red Coke Classic can. Pointing to the Coke Zero can, he adds, “We’re talking about a young product. You don’t think it’s age discrimination?” Johnson, holding each can, explodes: “It’s not a person! Title VII doesn’t cover these things!”Months after her summer duping, Johnson is still laughing about it. She says she wasn’t really surprised by the bizarre nature of the questions, as she often deals with employees who don’t understand what constitutes a viable claim. “I have had some pretty out-there questions asked by company employees,” she says. “My personal favorite is this: �Does the company require that we wear underwear?’ “ What did concern her, she says, was that the longer the “brand managers” talked, the more ridiculous their rationale got. “This is the most valuable trademark in the world, and these are the guys who are stewards of it,” she says. For outside counsel Robert Cowan, it all started when Dudukovich — whose wife went to law school with Cowan — called to ask if he could inject some “small-town lawyer sensibility” into a dispute between some of the company’s brand managers. In the video, Cowan, whose practice includes mediation, says with obvious frustration, “There’s got to be something that you guys can find as common ground to benefit everyone. There has to be.” One of the actors replies: “I think the best thing is to, you know, wipe them off the face of the earth.” The clip ends with a shot of Cowan’s stunned face. Cowan now recalls that he spent part of the meeting imagining a future conversation with Dudukovich where he’d say, “Are you nuts? Can’t you screen that stuff for me?” THEIR 15 MINUTES The lawyers all learned they’d been punk’d about 20 minutes into the interviews, when either Dudukovich came back into the room to clue them in to the charade or, in Kline’s case, a door opened and “out came at least four or five people. It was like something hatching,” he recalls. “This was the camera crew. . . . What floored me, though, was that there were at least two other cameras hidden at various angles.” Actually, says Dudukovich, there were four hidden cameras and a crew of about 20 — including a director, producers, camera people, agency and brand representatives, and Dudukovich — all watching from behind the two-way mirror. Dudukovich says the meetings were spread out over two days. In addition to Cowan, Kline, Koelemay, and Johnson, the company also secretly filmed meetings with in-house lawyers Anthony Cabrera, Victoria Jalo, Mike Kruljac (who has since left the company), and outside lawyer Edmund “Pete” Burke. All the attorneys were asked to sign a release immediately after learning they’d been punk’d. The two outside lawyers got paid for their time, says Dudukovich, and Cowan says he was told he’d be signed up for the Screen Actors Guild and paid scale wages for the television ad. But the in-house lawyers are donating their 15 minutes of fame to the company. “I had to sign a full release, everything given away for free,” says Kline. “Although it does say for good and valuable consideration. I’m still waiting for what that is.” Responds Dudukovich, “Fame and glory. Those constitute valid consideration under Georgia law.”
Janet Conley is associate editor at the Daily Report , an ALM publication based in Atlanta where this article first ran.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.