A name can make or break a brand. For one Oslo-based soda maker, it nearly led to a full-blown legal war. Their bubbly lemon drink had once proudly carried a familiar-sounding name until Coca-Cola’s lawyers came knocking.
In a bid to keep their business alive, the small company rebranded with what seemed like a playful twist: a few X’s instead of the disputed word. But to Coca-Cola, that clever workaround crossed another line. And now, what started as a creative fix might cost them far more than new labels.
Coca-Cola asked a small Norwegian soda maker to stop using “Sprite” in its drink name and still hated their new name once they complied
Trademark disputes like this one reveal how far corporate power can stretch when it comes to brand protection and how it sometimes backfires spectacularly.
According to The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), trademarks are meant to prevent consumer confusion, not to censor humor or artistic expression. “If the public can easily distinguish between brands, there’s no infringement,” explains intellectual property attorney David L. Cohen of Kidon IP.
In this case, JALLAXXXXXX doesn’t look or sound like Sprite. What it does resemble is satire, a deliberate poke at corporate overreach. “When a big company threatens a smaller one for parody or commentary, it often damages their image more than the alleged infringement,” notes legal scholar Dr. Amanda Levendowski in the NYU Law Review.
Coca-Cola’s claim that the new name “appears censored” ironically validates the parody itself. As marketing strategist Mark Ritson puts it, “Once a brand becomes so dominant that it owns everyday words, even jokes about it start sounding like threats.”
This legal hypersensitivity is what consumer psychologists call the Streisand Effect: the harder you try to suppress something, the more attention it gets.
Now, thanks to this dispute, Jallasprite, or JALLAXXXXXX, is gaining worldwide recognition. Local fans are rallying behind the company, with some joking that Coca-Cola accidentally handed them a viral marketing campaign. It’s a modern example of how authenticity and humor can outshine corporate legal muscle.
If Coca-Cola’s goal was to protect its image, this fight might have done the opposite, reminding the world that not every battle is worth picking, especially when it’s over a handful of letters and a bottle of lemon soda.
Here’s the feedback from the Reddit community:
These Redditors turned the drama into comedy gold, suggesting a running gag of ever-changing parody names like JALLACOKESUX and JallaSpite
This pair mocked Coca-Cola’s hypocrisy, pointing out that Coke literally caused the censorship look they were complaining about
This commenter recalled a similar absurd lawsuit
These users said Coke’s lawsuit backfired spectacularly, making people want to try Jalla instead
This group ridiculed Coca-Cola’s legal arrogance, calling the lawyer petty and confused
A local soda maker tried to comply with corporate demands and ended up in a second legal dispute for complying too well. Coca-Cola’s legal team may have wanted to protect its brand, but instead, it amplified a tiny competitor’s name across the internet.
Now everyone knows about Jalla’s lemon soda and Coke’s overreach might have done more for its marketing than any ad campaign ever could.
Would you side with the billion-dollar brand protecting its IP, or the small company making a point with a few X’s?
