Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
I understand your point (it's interesting), but let's assume Georgia provided Coca-Cola with a $3 billion incentive package to build a new plant in 1987. As part of that deal, Coca-Cola agreed not to sell under their brand into Cali? Isn't that the legal parallel?
|
Only if there is a signed agreement from Coca-Cola specifically limiting the right to exploit its trademark. Such an agreement would be enforceable but the statute wouldn't be.
And note, Baltimore is not alleging breach of contract here.
