Coca-Cola having been an iconic, refreshing brand for more than a century, must have been accustomed to copyright infringement. In 1970, the Coca-Cola brand was faced with the theft of their slogan, “It’s the real thing” by the publishing company, Grove Press for their advertisement of the Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher. The executive of the soda company, Ira Herbert, wrote a formal letter requesting for the Grove’s discontinue of their slogan as it threatened the brand’s originality. Richard Seaver, vice president of the Grove Press, wrote a letter in response to the request and unlike Herbert’s polite and serious manner, Seaver appeared to be far more arrogant. However, the difference between their appearances in the letters illustrates…show more content… The opposing side asserted that multiple uses of “It’s the real thing” would confuse customers and lose its effectiveness of advertising their soda. People would expect the vice president to act sophisticated towards the situation, but instead, Seaver compares “a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola” in response (6). A book and a soda is an obvious distinction and Seaver knows this so he includes this in his letter to criticize Herbert for over-exaggerating the consequences of sharing slogans. If Herbert truly did believe that sharing slogans would bring confusion, then he is assuming that the public is unintelligent. This can ruin Coke’s reputation for being discourteous of the consumers. Seaver’s mockery of Herbert’s concerns reveals how foolish Herbert is to possibly believe the slogan can confuse the public when it is clear that the two products are not at all related. Also, the words are ironic because no one would expect the confusion of the slogan to give Coke free advertising at a bookstore. The irony allows Seaver’s argument to stand out for being humorous and more persuasive because of his clever rebuttal. In addition to the irony, Seaver mocks Herbert’s letter by imitating his diction. For instance, Seaver sounds reassuring when he replied that his intentions were not to “dilute the distinctiveness of your trade slogan…show more content… As an example, Seaver alludes to the Bill of Rights by mentioning the First Amendment (30). The mentioning of the constitution brings in the idea of freedom of speech which Seaver seems to support since he does not mind sharing slogans with the Coca-Cola Company. The Bill substantiates the writer’s argument greatly because it was an actual document assuring the rights of the people. There is no argument against the Bill of Rights which makes his letter seem even more persuasive because Seaver knows it is difficult arguing against him and the Bill, whereas Herbert has many weak claims. Additionally, Seaver recalls a time of when the Grove Press encountered a more “direct and deadly threat” (30). The use of adjectives such as “deadly” undermines the importance of copying slogans. Deadly is a strong word used to describe a threatening event, but using the word in this context exaggerates the scandal that the soda company brought up. Seaver’s purpose is to prove how much Herbert is overreacting over the fact that the Press used a similar advertising scheme. He believes that people do not have the right to claim a particular catchphrase so he uses adjectives to describe how other events matter more than this trivial scandal. The evidence Seaver has provided in his letter is extremely important because every word serves a role in Seaver’s stance to make him more convincing in this
