Coca-Cola Company Vs. Seaver Of Grove Press Inc.
The correspondence of letters between Herbert of the Coca-Cola Company and Seaver of Grove Press Inc. serve to establish which company has the precedent to use the slogan “It’s the Real Thing.” Through satire and irony, Seaver undoubtedly offers the more persuasive case.
Herbert appeals to his sense of logos to persuade Seaver to refrain from using the slogan by offering an accumulation of reasons to support his argument. Seaver’s initial tone is one of business sand politeness; upon further inspection, his scathing tone reveals itself by his rebuttal of each of Herbert’s arguments. “We are writing to ask you to stop…” Herbert directly states that his purpose in writing his letter is to persuade Grove Press from using Coca-Cola’s slogan. Seaver rebuts the letter by denying the confusion of the two products. By feigning seriousness about confusion through mockery of “mistaking a book… for a six-pack of Coca-Cola,” Seaver diminishes Herbert’s argument of confusion between the two products by successfully parodying Herbert’s intimidating tone. …show more content…
Seaver’s use of a hyperbole also intensifies his persuasive case when the humorous book titles are listed to satirize the matter.
“Games People Play… imitations… Games Children Play, Games Psychiatrists Play, Games Ministers Play.” By claiming that Grove Press has had more serious issues with copyright infringements due to “conscious imitations,” Seaver disregards Herbert’s attempt at a pathos appeal to hinder his true threatening tone. Not only does Seaver imply that his use of the slogan was an “unconscious imitation,” but his use of strong diction (“far more direct and deadly threat”) implies that Coca-Cola’s matter was far less serious than Grove Press’s previous problems. Seaver furthers his argument—“sentiments concerning the First Amendment”—by placing Herbert in a predicament that denying Grove Press’s right to use the slogan would eventually harm Coca-Cola’s rights as
well.
Seaver inflates the straightforward disagreement over a slogan to a greater matter of freedom of speech by mentioning the First Amendment. Seaver’s allusion to the First Amendment serves to inform Herbert that Grove Press will continue to use the slogan. Dismissing Herbert’s threat of having the aid of a large company, Seaver ironically asserts (“defend to the death”) that Grove Press will defend itself as well.
Seaver’s indication that Herbert “owned the phrase,” juxtaposed with his previous comment that phrases become “part of our language,” signifies that no one indeed owns the phrase. The careful and candid diction of Seaver displays ludicrousness at Coca-Cola “owning” the phrase.
The actuality that the two letters depict the complete correspondence between the two representatives implies that Seaver’s argument was accepted.
Herbert appeals to his sense of logos to persuade Seaver to refrain from using the slogan by offering an accumulation of reasons to support his argument. Seaver’s initial tone is one of business sand politeness; upon further inspection, his scathing tone reveals itself by his rebuttal of each of Herbert’s arguments. “We are writing to ask you to stop…” Herbert directly states that his purpose in writing his letter is to persuade Grove Press from using Coca-Cola’s slogan. Seaver rebuts the letter by denying the confusion of the two products. By feigning seriousness about confusion through mockery of “mistaking a book… for a six-pack of Coca-Cola,” Seaver diminishes Herbert’s argument of confusion between the two products by successfully parodying Herbert’s intimidating tone. …show more content…
Seaver’s use of a hyperbole also intensifies his persuasive case when the humorous book titles are listed to satirize the matter.
“Games People Play… imitations… Games Children Play, Games Psychiatrists Play, Games Ministers Play.” By claiming that Grove Press has had more serious issues with copyright infringements due to “conscious imitations,” Seaver disregards Herbert’s attempt at a pathos appeal to hinder his true threatening tone. Not only does Seaver imply that his use of the slogan was an “unconscious imitation,” but his use of strong diction (“far more direct and deadly threat”) implies that Coca-Cola’s matter was far less serious than Grove Press’s previous problems. Seaver furthers his argument—“sentiments concerning the First Amendment”—by placing Herbert in a predicament that denying Grove Press’s right to use the slogan would eventually harm Coca-Cola’s rights as
well.
Seaver inflates the straightforward disagreement over a slogan to a greater matter of freedom of speech by mentioning the First Amendment. Seaver’s allusion to the First Amendment serves to inform Herbert that Grove Press will continue to use the slogan. Dismissing Herbert’s threat of having the aid of a large company, Seaver ironically asserts (“defend to the death”) that Grove Press will defend itself as well.
Seaver’s indication that Herbert “owned the phrase,” juxtaposed with his previous comment that phrases become “part of our language,” signifies that no one indeed owns the phrase. The careful and candid diction of Seaver displays ludicrousness at Coca-Cola “owning” the phrase.
The actuality that the two letters depict the complete correspondence between the two representatives implies that Seaver’s argument was accepted.