# Years that MY COCA CO was in production



## grime5 (Nov 5, 2009)

What years was My Coca Co in production? Was it bottled anywhere but Lexington KY? Did they have a slogan for advertisement?


----------



## glass man (Nov 5, 2009)

DAMN BRO. I DONE MISSED WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT. IS IT A PIC. YOU HAVE ALREADY SHOWED? OR A DESCRIPTION YOU HAVE GIVEN AND I HAVE MISSED? I WILL TRY TO HELP YOU! JAMIE


----------



## ncbred (Nov 5, 2009)

1905-1916 I believe.  Dennis Smith (celerycola) could probably give you a more definite answer.


----------



## surfaceone (Nov 6, 2009)

Evening Greg, Jamie, and Dustin,

 I did a kind of double-take when I saw Greg's post. I, at first, thought he was talking about his Coca-Cola. Jamie beat me to the head scratching. I reread it and discovered he was talking about My Coca-Co. So I went looking for that.










 "Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. is another company that decided to try their "fake" cola on the market. Of course they didn't last long either due to lawsuits or just lack of sales. 
 (This bottle is quite common and can usually be found on Ebay. Can pick this bottle up for less than $40.)"

 "Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. bottle. Much harder to find Aqua bottle." Found at this Cool Site.

 They have another example Greg:






 "Circa:1905-1916 Another version just in Aqua color. Notice that this bottle just reads "MY-Coca and does not have the "Co." at the end. Perhaps due to the fact that this was a franchised bottler."

 Okay, now I know that this was another in the long line of Coke imitators that were sued into oblivion by the Coca-Cola Co. But then I found a pretty interesting site that has the records of many of these lawsuits. Gay-ola, Taka-Cola, Koke, Chero-Cola, Toca Cola, Koa Cola and a host of others are enjoined, told to cease and desist, pay damages, etc

 Here's more than you ever wanted to know about Coca Cola Co. vs The Leonard Hotel Co.

 "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED 

 STATES FOR THE EASTERN 

 DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 



 No. 807 SEPTEMBER 23, 1916 



 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 

 v. 
 THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY. 



 This cause is before me for final decree. The plain- 
 tiff is the manufacturer and seller of the well-known 
 drink, Coca-Cola, The defendant owns and operates 
 a hotel in Lexington, Ky., and in connection there- 
 with a bar. At that bar it sells a drink similar 
 in appearance and taste to plaintiff's article, known 
 as My Coca, manufactured and sold by a concern in 
 which defendant's proprietor and manager is the 
 largest stockholder. The defendant had for a num- 
 ber of years sold Coca-Cola, but three or four years 
 ago ceased to do so and ever since then it has sold 
 My Coca, The complaint made against it by the bill 
 herein, which was filed October 7th, 1915, was that 
 it was selling My Coca as and for Coca-Cola to cus- 
 tomers calling for Coca-Cola, and the relief sought 
 was an injunction against a continuance of such 
 selling. 

 That such selling is a wrong to plaintiff and en- 
 joinable is well settled. That it has been so doing 
 before the bringing of the suit is beyond question. 
 Plaintiff's detective, Ross, testifies to sales on three 
 separate occasions on March 4th, 1915, on four on 
 March 5th, 1915, and on two on June 9th, 1915, on 

 277 



 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 



 two on June llth, 1915, and on one on June 14th, 
 1915. As to one of the sales on March 4th, Ross is 
 corroborated by the testimony of one of plaintiff's 
 traveling salesmen, and as to the sales in June, by 
 the testimony of two persons employed by him to 
 assist in his detective work. The Special Commis- 
 sioner, who saw these witnesses and heard them tes- 
 tify, finds that their testimony is "absolutely true," 
 notwithstanding the denial of defendant's bartenders. 
 That they were engaged in detective work does not 
 weaken their testimony, especially in view of the 
 fact that there was no desire to involve defendant 
 in a lawsuit, as shown by the fact that, after the 
 sales in March, defendant's attention was called to 
 the matter, with a request that such sales cease. 
 Had this notice and request been heeded there would 
 have been no lawsuit. I 

 This testimony is corroborated by certain of de- 
 fendant's witnesses. Their testimony not only had 
 this effect, but it tended to establish other such sales ; 
 indeed, it tended to establish that it. was the custom 
 before this suit was brought to make such sales, 
 whenever opportunity afforded. H. C. Deering was 
 an employe of defendant. He worked at the cigar 
 stand in front of the bar, with a partition between 
 them. He had so worked for two years. He fre- 
 quently went into the bar. He testified that he had 
 observed that when Coca-Cola was asked for the 
 bartender explained that they did not handle Coca- 
 Cola, but did handle My Coca. When asked as to 
 when his attention was first called to this, he first 
 said that it was in the last five months. He then 
 said that, it was in three or four or five months, 
 then that he would not say that it was in six months, 
 but in about three or four months, and then, that he 
 had not noticed it prior to four or five months. Kit 
 Blevins, a barber, worked in the hotel barber shop. 
 He had worked there some time previously to June, 
 1915, but continuously since that time. He went into 

 278 



 v. THE LEQNABD HOTEL COMPANY 

 the bar regularly, or most every day. Before then 
 he had been in there off and on for over three or 
 four years. He had observed the same thing that 
 Deering had when Coca-Cola was called for. When 
 asked when this first happened, he said that he did 
 not remember any further back than that it hap- 
 pened within the last six or eight months. Further 
 on he testified that recently when he called for Coca- 
 Cola they would make the explanation, and when 
 asked how recently, he said in the last five or six 
 months back that it had become a joke between 
 him and the bartenders because of this suit. Ollie 
 S. Honaker, a florist, was a patron of defendant's 
 bar. He had been so regularly for two years. When 
 he called for Coca-Cola he was told that they did 
 not have Coca-Cola, but had My Coca. He was asked 
 as to how long ago this had happened, and he said 
 that it had been six months, in the last six months; 
 that was as near as he could state, but it was prob- 
 ably longer; that he did not think that it was any 
 less time than this, but he supposed, if anything, 
 it was longer. 

 J. J. McGurk, a confectioner, was a patron also of 
 defendant's bar. He was there on an average once 
 a day. He sold Coca-Cola himself, and hence never 
 asked for it there. He had, however, on a good many 
 occasions, observed others call for it, and the expla- 
 nation heretofore referred to given. He first said 
 that he had noticed this during the last six months 
 or eight months, and then that he had heard it within 
 the last six months and possibly previously to that, 
 but could not say positively. 

 The implication of the testimony of these four 
 witnesses was that, before they had observed that 
 such explanation was given, My Coca was furnished 
 when Coca-Cola was called for, without explanation, 
 i. e., that it was sold as and for Coca-Cola. They 
 vary slightly as to the time when they first observed 
 this, Deering putting the time shorter than the other 

 279 



 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 



 three. They testified on February 3rd, 1916. This 
 suit was brought October 7th, 1915, nearly four 
 months before. The estimates as to the time were 
 approximate only. The reasonable conclusion is that 
 the time when they first observed this was at the 
 bringing of this suit. Blevins testifies that the call- 
 ing for Coca-Cola by him and the explanation given 
 by the bartender was a joke between them because 
 of the bringing of the suit. The unreliability of 
 McGurk's testimony estimating the time is shown 
 by the fact that he testified that a sign which de- 
 fendant had placed in the bar informing customers 
 that it did not sell Coca-Cola, but sold My Coca, had 
 been up longer than he had observed the explana- 
 tion given by the bartenders. The sign had been 
 put up after November 12th, 1915. 

 The testimony of other witnesses than these four, 
 outside of the bartenders, introduced by defendant 
 is not sufficient to make out a different state of fact. 
 When they testified defendant's bartenders had, no 
 doubt, for nearly four months, at least, been quite 
 regularly explaining that the article which they sold 
 was My Coca and not Coca-Cola. The questions put 
 to them covered this time. They were not limited 
 to the time before the suit was brought. In giving 
 estimates as to how long they had observed this they 
 could readily fall into error. How readily they could 
 do so is shown by the fact that one or two of them 
 estimated that the sign which, then, had not been 
 up for as much as three months, had been as much 
 as, or over, a year. 

 Besides this evidencee covering the time before the 
 bringing of this suit, it was testified to by plaintiff's 
 detective that after it was brought, to wit, on De- 
 cember 21st, defendant's head bartender sold him My 
 Coca as and for Coca-Cola, and his testimony was 
 corroborated by a disinterested witness. This tes- 
 timony the Special Master also finds to have been 
 "absolutely" true. 

 280 



 v. THE LEQNAED HOTEL COMPANY 

 Apart from the denials on the part of defendant's 
 bartenders as to their making such sales, the sole 
 defense is that such sales, if made, were contrary 
 to the instructions of the defendant's proprietor, Mr. 
 Shouse, and it. was innocent of any intent to appro- 
 priate plaintiff's business. The Special Master finds 
 that such sales as are shown by plaintiff's evidence 
 to have been made without explanation ''were made 
 against the proprietor's and manager's direct instruc- 
 tions and without his knowledge or consent or ap- 
 proval and were made through carelessness and in- 
 advertence and without any intention whatever to 
 deceive the public or to wrong the complainant." 
 I do not find it necessary to go into the question 
 as to the correctness of the finding. Accepting it 
 as correct, it is not a good defense to plaintiff's right 
 to relief. The bartenders were defendant's repre- 
 sentatives, and it is responsible for their action. It 
 is a matter of common knowledge that the demand 
 for such drinks as Coca-Cola, My Coca and the like 
 was created by plaintiff's article. My Coca resembles 
 it in appearance and taste. The persons to whom 
 defendant sold My Coca when Coca-Cola was called 
 for were plaintiff's customers, i. e., persons desiring 
 plaintiff's article. It availed itself of the opportunity 
 presented by the call for Coca-Cola to sell its ar- 
 ticles in its stead, and that even though full expla- 
 nations were made, which it had the right, to do. 
 This condition of things called for its seeing to it 
 that its bartenders did not sell My Coca as and for 
 Coca-Cola, This it did not do. Plaintiff was sat- 
 isfied to call defendant's attention' to the wrong that 
 was being done it, when first advised of it. Find- 
 ing that the wrong continued it had no recourse but 
 to bring this suit. And since the suit was brought 
 it has continued. There is some evidence that the 
 bartenders regard it as a joking matter. The sign 
 was not heeded. It did not better conditions. If 
 anything, it worsened them. The tendency of the 

 281 



 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 



 sign is to cause the bartenders to think it is suffi- 
 cient. What is needed is notice that the responsi- 
 bility is on the bartenders, and if the wrong is con- 
 tinued he will be discharged and pains taken to see 
 that he complies with instructions. Abundant author- 
 ity exists supporting the position that plaintiff is 
 entitled to the relief which it seeks. None other 
 need be cited than this extract from Mr. JUSTICE 
 BROWN'S opinion in 

 Saxlehuer v. Siegel Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42, 
 to wit: 

 "In the case against the Siegel Cooper Com- 
 pany there was no charge of an intentional fraud, 
 and the court found there was no evidence of 
 fraudulent conduct on its part, and dismissed 
 the bill as to that company. As to the other 
 two cases, the court found* that the clerks in 
 charge of their stores, in response to special 
 requests for Janes water, wrapped up and de- 
 livered Matyas water, purchased of the Eisner 
 and Mandelson Company. In other words, they 
 had palmed off the one for the other. We think 
 that an injunction should issue against all those 
 defendants, but that as the Siegel Cooper Com- 
 pany appears to have acted in good faith, and 
 the sales of others were small, they should not 
 be required to account for gains and profits. 
 The fact that the Siegel Cooper Company acted 
 innocently does not exonerate it from the charge 
 of infringement." 

 The plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The Commis- 
 sioner is allowed $100.00 for his service. 

 A. M. J. COCHRAN, Judge. 

 September 23, 1916. 



 Candler. Thomson & Hirsch, Atlanta, Georgia, 
 Selligman & Selligman, Louisville, Ky. 
 For Complainant. 

 282 



 v. THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY 




 No. 807 NOVEMBER 2, 1916 



 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY 

 v. 
 THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY. 



 This case having been heard by the Court and the 
 Court being sufficiently advised, it is now ordered and 
 adjudged as follows: 

 1. That the defendant, the Leonard Hotel Com- 
 pany, its agents, servants and employes and each of 
 them be and they are hereby enjoined from selling 
 My Coca or any similar drink to persons calling for 
 Coca-Cola without first informing such intending pur- 
 chaser or purchasers that the defendant does not 
 handle Coca-Cola, and cannot sell it to them, and 
 that the article that is offered or tendered for sale is 
 not Coca-Cola, or in any other way selling My Coca 
 or any other similar drink as and for Coca-Cola to 
 such persons. 

 2. That the complainant recover of the defendant 
 its costs herein expended. 

 A. M. J. COCHRAN, 

 Judge. 

 Nov. 2, 1916. 
 A copy. Attest: 

 J. W. MENZIES, Clerk, 

 By C. N. WARD, D. C. 

 283 "  Found here.

 P.S. For collectors of some of these bottles from companies that were forced outta business by Coca-Cola, you may find the above site of interest. One case was adjudicated by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, for the lawyerly, baseball guys.

 Thanks for asking this question Greg. I learned a buncha new stuff.


----------



## surfaceone (Nov 6, 2009)

In the fog of all that litigation, I forgot to put up a little more information. No more case law, I promise.

 I found this list of "Other" Colas at this Bottling Site.
 There were a number that I had never heard of before. Has anyone ever visited this collection?

 They list 3 different My Coca-Co.s:

 "MY=COCA CO.	LEXINGTON, KY	--	AM	FOOT SCRIPT
 MY=COCA CO.	LEXINGTON, KY	--	CL	FOOT SCRIPT
 MY=COCA CO.	COLUMBIA, KY	 	AQ	MIG SLUG W/ CITY"  Found on this page.

 ***************************************************

 What with the close proximity to all the above effervescence, I found this Cool Closure.
 Has anyone seen this closure in the wild? What is the proper name for it?


----------



## Kilroy (Nov 7, 2009)

I sold one of these on ebay that I picked up at an estate sale at the western border of Georgia, Near Callaway Gardens where we were vacationing.  I saved text files of all my auctions back then.  Below is a photo of the bottle and the original listing text from back in 2004.  It sold for just over $50.  I have other pics of it if necessary.

 This is a clear, tooled crown top, early Coca-Cola or Coke knockoff.  The word Coca (in a simular script form) was probably used to get some of the name recognition of Coca-Cola.  The embossing on the front reads: MY COCA / ROBERTS BROS.  The embossing on the rear reads: MY COCA / WEST POINT, GA  On the bottom is embossed: R.B.  There is a chipped area on the front edge of the base(see closeup), and a ding on the other side of the base that is just over 1/8th inch.  Other than that, there is just some case wear and some light haze.  Please email if you have any questions. Thanks for looking!


----------



## CreekWalker (Nov 20, 2009)

Hi , I dug an amber My Coca SS soda, also marked- Memphis 10 (Tenn) quite awhile back, and sold the bottle , (it was damaged)but have a photo archived. Just quicker to check out digger mcdirts past posts and you will see a photo of one. Search " My Coca", there is an amber KOKE SS soda from the same era in Memphis. The MY COCA is much more scarce.


----------

