In God We Trust. Unless You're Dublin Dr Pepper, Says Corporate's Latest Filing.

att67caa.jpg
At the end of last week, Plano-based Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. filed its response to Dublin Dr Pepper's response to corporate's lawsuit filed in June, in which the mothership insists Dublin's violating a licensing agreement by selling The Imperial Pure Cane Sugar-y Good Stuff outside of a six-county area. The new filing follows. It's not nearly as good a read as Steve Wolens's wonderfully written history-of offered in defense of Dublin; matter of fact, it's positively bland, much like corn-syrup Dr Pepper when compared to the real thing. But, there is one intriguing item of note contained deep within the pleading -- Paragraph 33, to be specific.

Wolens, who's repping Dublin, noted in his August 9 filing that on March 24 corporate issued the Dublin bottler the following directive: "Do not use 'In God We Trust' on certain merchandise." Which was odd, Wolens noted, only because corporate had allowed it in the past. It was the attorney's way of showing "an erratic pattern in corporate approval of trademark use in recent years," as Barry Shclachter noted.

In its response, though, the Plano company acknowledges: "Dr Pepper admits that it does not approve Defendant's use of 'In God We Trust' on certain merchandise." It doesn't say why.

But it does recall the minor brouhaha that occurred in November 2001, when, following the terror attacks of September 11, corporate issued a special can "to support the patriotic fervor that has been sweeping America." As you'll see here, the can featured the Statue of Liberty and three words from the Pledge of Allegiance: "One Nation ... Indivisible."

One letter-writer asked corporate: "What anti-God, anti-American heathen among your employees decided that Dr Pepper/7-UP had the right to re-write this patriotic anthem to exclude reference to the God Who caused America to become the greatest nation ever to grace the face of the Earth?" The company insisted it was due to "space limitations."

I asked Wolens this morning what's Dr Pepper got against the phrase "In God We Trust"? His response: "Lord knows." Heh. Then, he said, "The only thing I can think of is they probably think they own the trademark to that phrase."Dr Pepper Snapple Response to Dublin Filing

Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
61 comments
Wigglez14
Wigglez14

Don't you guys see that the religious controversy is just a front so Dr. Pepper has a reason to shut down the Dublin distributor. Dublin Dr Pepper was being sold outside its territories, used cane sugar( which is way more exspensivr than HFCS), and barely made a noticible profit for the whole of the corporation. What happens to a chicken that doesn't provide eggs? It gets axed.

Steve
Steve

"Drink Dublin Dr Pepper."

GOD

Cathi
Cathi

Whatever.   I drink Coke!

Bobby
Bobby

Your right, My bad, Satan, not satin............Chuckle chuckle

C W
C W

I love "In GOD we trust"!!  Let's everyone that likes the term quit buying their product and see how long the atheists and all others can support them. Even a positive mention of Jesus is fine with me. We don't have to have dp, but we Do have to have GOD. Amen

Bobby
Bobby

Sorry Mark, it is not the same deity!   And if it said "in Satin we trust" yes we Christians would not stand for it!

texjoy
texjoy

You know I am at this moment trying to look up info on the law that prohibits corps. from expressing their religious views. I'm not saying there isn't. Any wedsites that you know of to direct me? As for as Allah being the same deity as The God of The Holy Bible...there is a big difference if you'd like to know...here is one website that shows side by side the difference in The Koran and The holy Bible check it out--->http://www.deceptioninthechurc...

Montemalone
Montemalone

What's the xtian word for jihad? That's what would happen.

Texjoy56
Texjoy56

It’s pathetic how everyone has a right to express their religious views except Christians. If a business wants to put a religious statement on a product they sell it is their right under the U.S. Constitution .Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Texjoy
Texjoy

What ever the company's religious views are they have a right to express them whether you like it or not! Freedom of speech? Free country? Or is that just for the atheist?

curt miles
curt miles

I'll never drink another Dr. Pepper again if they close Dublin down.

Reality
Reality

This is so dumb.  Leave Dublin Dr. Pepper alone.  Leave God alone.  Leave your corporate willies alone and find something else to do.

Brian
Brian

This is an unfortunate sign of the society we live in. I read all comments, and what everyone forgot to leave out, and I firmly believe this, that even GOD does not believe in religion! He believes in spirituality! Just getting that out of the way... As far as the "In God We Trust"...I find it hilarious and quite annoying now that non-believers only want to bring up First Amendment rights when someone or something is publicly broadcasting that offends them. Its a double-standard! The First Amendment was created for EVERYONE!!! As much as atheists piss me off...I still recognize that they too have their rights as well!!! But they need to do the same!!!

Hunter Richards
Hunter Richards

I love Dublin Dr. Pepper but "In God We Trust" has absolutely NO business being used in the merchandising. I'm siding with the mothership on this one.

Bobby
Bobby

If a company has a certain belief, Christianity, & it happens to be the same belief that our founding fathers had. Then what is wrong placing these words on thier product. This country has too many politicians, lawyers,etc.. who are doing Satins work, tearing down and tring to seperate the Christian infulence that made this a Great Country. Seperation of Church and state, (you can save it), the intent was to protect the Church & the people, from the Gov.'s infulence in religion, It was never intended to remove God from our Goverment. Cudos for DP.

Wanona Stevens
Wanona Stevens

This is all just a bunch of hogwash and someone trying to bully a small town. If "In God We Trust' comes off the advertising, then I don't care if Dublin loses. I am from Dublin, but I am first and foremost a Christian. I don't understand why you "big fat guys" cant let the small guy have what has been his all along. You're making plenty of money...I drink enough Dr. Pepper to keep somebody's wife clothed. But if that phrase  comes off, I will and I hope others will  boycott Dr. Pepper and their products. I hope you go bankrupt and when you mess with God, you just might. We've taken Him off everything else. I thought Dr. Pepper had morals enough to leave Him be, but you too are cowards.

Jay
Jay

You know what.  If you are an Atheist or other non-believer, how about you just shut up and not drink Dublin Dr Pepper products?  Vote with your dollar.  You don't like it, move on.  People and corporations have the absolute right to use religious phrases in public.

Sam
Sam

As a non theist, I find the billboards mildly offensive. THAT is why corporate needs to force the issue. Religion has nothing to do with soft drinks and it's only put up there to pander to people who believe in superstitions. Same goes for Whataburger. Many of their franchises have religious decals in the windows. If I see one, I move on. Religion was the motivating force behind the 9/11 attacks.

Ridinaround
Ridinaround

Sounds like Corp DP lacks a lot of knowledge...including the fact that we, the people, feel it should leave Dublin Dr Pepper be.

dd
dd

If Dr Pepper Inc. is so stupid to press this issue this far, they are not worthy of the Dr. title. The title, earned or honorary, should be receded immeditely and henceforth the company will be called Mr. Pepper Inc., or better yet Mr. Pecker Inc.Dublin Dr. Pepper henceforth will be called Sir Dr. Pepper of Dublin. 

Justin Julian
Justin Julian

Oh great.  Right about the time we finally put that meme to bed, Dr. Pepper corporate brings it back to life.  I know what every fundamentalist Christian church will be talking about and inevitably forwarding to our inboxes come Sunday.

adam26
adam26

Why would you include such an idiotic rambling of someone who clearly doesn't realize "Under God" wasn't in the original pledge? You can't say "Under God" and then go on to say "Indivisible."

zzz05
zzz05

So your position is that the owners of the Dr. Pepper company should not have the right to let somebody else use their products to advertise the other person's religion. Now that's America!

Paul
Paul

Good points Texjoy56, but unfortunately Amendment #1 to the Constitution deals only with matters between the government and individual citizens and not between individual citizens.

Before you get into an uproar, this is not about whether or Dublin Dr. Pepper can say "In God We Trust".  This case is whether or not someone can modify a licensed, registered or copyright matter or trademark without the permission of the owner of that copyright or trademark.

If Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group does not enforce its rights against infringers it can lose its rights.

I imagine that what has really happened is that there was an executive at Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group who was on friendly terms with Dublin Dr. Pepper.  This executive would give his consent to modifications by Dublin Dr. Pepper to the various trademarks.  This executive didn't bother to document these permissible modifications.

Now that executive is probably gone and Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group is enforcing its rights as it either cannot find the documentation or the new executives do not wish to continue to give permission to the trademark modifications.

I am sure that what Mr. Wolens will argue is that in the absence of any documentation allowing the trademark modifications that the continued use over a period of time does indeed show that the right had been granted for these modifications and that Dr. Pepper/Dublin may continue to use these modified trademarks.

Of course, Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group will argue that regardless of any documentation issues that they have the absolute right to control the use of their trademarks regardless of any prior modifications granted and that they can rescind the use of those modifications.

The picture in this story sums it all up.  Who owns this trademark?  Is it an infringement on someone else's trademark?

hth

ASDF
ASDF

Except it's not a person, it's a corporation and the corporation doesn't have individual beliefs.  Is it really that hard to grasp?

richard schumacher
richard schumacher

They have no right to tinker with the owner's trademarks.  Would you uphold the franchisee's "right" to put "Hail Satan" on the logo if they were Really Sincere about it?   

ASDF
ASDF

Yeah, we need to keep god plastered all over everywhere to keep the indoctrination machine in place.  Surely you realize that indoctrination is the only reason you and 99% believe?  If parents and everyone else tells their kids something is true enough the kid will believe it without question.  This has been used by every religion since the beginning of time and the current religions are no different.  The difference is they used to be a method to explain things that were otherwise unexplainable

Remove the indoctrination and the ENTIRE basis of modern religions belief are text that were written thousands of years ago.  These texts were written by humans, modified after the fact, and entire books have been omitted by humans.  Most countries are well ahead of the US in coming out of the stone ages.  Luckily more and more people are waking up and using logic these days thanks to the interenet.

RKH
RKH

And who died and made you the merchandising king on what DDP should or should not be using? America is a free country and there is that little thing called freedom of speech.

Montemalone
Montemalone

You need to cut back on whatever it is you're adding to your DP.

Sam
Sam

Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and even George Washington all have letters in their own handwriting that you can read which absolutely prove that many of the founding fathers were atheists or disgusted by religion. Do your own research instead of just listening to pundits.

Tomintexas817
Tomintexas817

I have already quit drinking corp. dp and I used to drink 5-7 a day.

Montemalone
Montemalone

What if that sign said "There is no god".What would you say to that? Or would you just keep your trap shut?

Sam
Sam

How about you don't insinuate that atheists don't have the right to free speech. I think Dublin DP is a very tasty beverage. I drink it occasionally. I like it much better than regular Dr Pepper. 

Why should my religion have anything to do with flavored sugar water?They have the right to say whatever they want, but they don't own the name "Dr Pepper." Dr Pepper Snapple Group owns the trademark. If DPSG decides that what Dublin is doing is damaging the brand by bringing up just this sort of religious bickering, then they are going to defend their trademark. If the billboards and merchandise didn't say "In GOD we trust" on them, you and I would not be having any contentious discussion at all. This is exactly what they want to avoid. If you bring up religion, someone's hackles are going to rise. If it's never brought up, there's no argument and their brand name isn't dragged into a holy war.

Ron
Ron

Hear, hear!  Apparently, constitutional right of freedom of speech only applies to bitter "non theists", whatever that is, and not to those who want to include God in their lives and work.

RKH
RKH

Then don't read the billboards....duh...they have the right of freedom of speech. God bless Texas and God bless Dublin Dr. Pepper...amen.

Guest
Guest

And I find your comments extremely offensive........

Elise Stockwell
Elise Stockwell

Why does it matter if it has 'in God we trust on it'?  I drink something because I like the taste, not because of what it says on the outside. It should matter more what people think of the of Dublin Dr Pepper.than that it says 'Dublin' or 'In God We trust'. 

ASDF
ASDF

Not only is Whataburger making a religious statement, they're making a political statement.  Those signs are actively promoting a theocracy.  I for one am glad Dr Pepper is moving beyond this while the hillbillies at Whataburger are stuck in the stone ages.

texjoy
texjoy

That's kinda confusing how you worded that. I don't think it's right for someone outside of the corporation should express their own religious views on a product that doesn't belong to corporation. But anyway on my last comment I am talking about trying to understand what the constitution says on a corporation using a religious slogan on their product. If it is within their constitutional right.

texjoy
texjoy

Thanks for the enlightening  reply Paul. I have done some research since I posted that comment and I'm finding out some things I didn't know. There are clauses within the 1st amendment that pertain to different circumstances? If I worded that right? I am not a constitutional expert, far from it. But if anything, this has made me take a long look at our constitutional amendments. Tks. :-)

texjoy
texjoy

I will do some research on it and find out what I can.

Bobby
Bobby

Now there is a well thought out remark! If one believes n God, you have to believe n his word, once you make that connection from the physical realm to the spritual, and accept God as your Lord and Savior, you would then realize what you have been missing. If I'm wrong,I have lived a better life, If your wrong then, then n my opinion your taking one "Hell" of a chance.

Tomintexas817
Tomintexas817

Damn Sam, Bobby din't mention what religion they were only that the seperation was to protect the church and citizens right to be free

Theizzy
Theizzy

most were Deist not atheist

Bobby
Bobby

 The exact nature of George Washington's religious beliefs has been debated by historians and biographers for over two hundred years. Unlike some of his fellow Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Patrick Henry, Washington rarely discussed or wrote about his religious and philosophical opinions in any great detail, yet he frequently displayed a humble and gracious respect towards God in his personal letters and public speeches. He was a registered member at a number of churches, where he attended but not always weekly, and served as an Anglican vestryman and warden for more than a decade and a half. Ditto

David Reichlein
David Reichlein

Absolutely. They have every right to put on their products anything they wish. Just like you have the right to put a sign in your yard saying that as well. I may think your an idiot (well after reading this I think thought police may be a better term for your arguments) but you and they have the right to put anything they want on them. Just as I have to right to not buy their products, and gripe about it. we both even have the right to be offended, but we do not have the right to force others to change so we are not offended, because they have those same rights I do. your free to do any damm fool thing you want to provided it does harm someone else, interfere with their personal liberty or make on person more equal than another. Protection from being offended? that is not a right, nor is it fundamentally possible. If you take away my ability to do something because of some vague "offence" then I in turn get offended by that. so now we are both offended, and you are somehow more equal than I am because you got your way, and I did not. that violates on of the actual rights we have.

Montemalone
Montemalone

Don't forget chicfila and hobby lobby

David Reichlein
David Reichlein

"A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members...Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[4] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud andmanslaughter.[5]"  I would assume that if its an entity with the ability to be convicted of crimes, it also has protections granted to people as well. I do know that corporations often invoke the self incrimination clause in legal hearings.

Paul
Paul

Hello texjoy ... thank you for the compliment ... The Constitution is pretty easy to understand once one recognizes that it only governs the relationship between the states and the federal government; and, between the federal government and individual citizens.

Of course there are some areas open to debate such as what exactly does the commerce clause mean.  It has been extended to the reach that an individual baker in a small town selling for in store consumption only is subject to the Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because wheat flour is sold in interstate commerce and some of this wheat that is sold in interstate commerce may be used in the local baker's bread.

And then there is the so-called "right to privacy" that is not enumerated in Constitution, but seems to be there.  Look up the arguments for this and you will be amazed at how the Supremes came up with that one.  But then again, they did come up with Plessy v. Ferguson.

hth

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...