A Colombian Indigenous business, Coca Nasa, has launched a legal battle against beverage giant Coca-Cola, seeking to revoke its century-old trademark on the word "coca." Coca Nasa, which produces coca-based energy drinks, beers and liquors, claims that the trademark protection granted to Coca-Cola infringes upon the fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples and has been used abusively by the multinational company.

Motivated by what it calls a history of bullying by Coca-Cola, Coca Nasa aims to defend the cultural heritage associated with the coca leaf, which is not only used to produce Coca-Cola but also cocaine. The coca plant is a major legal crop in several South American countries and has been used for medicinal and ceremonial purposes by Andean communities for centuries.

Coca Nasa, named after an Indigenous group native to southern Colombia, was founded in 1998 by David Curtidor and Fabiola Piñacué. The company's mission was to destigmatize the coca leaf and showcase its positive aspects through the production of beverages, food, and supplements.

While the raw coca plant does not possess the narcotic effects of cocaine, the association with the illicit drug trade prompted the 1961 treaty enforced by the International Narcotics Control Board, which requires the uprooting of all wild-growing coca plants and restricts the distribution of products containing even trace amounts of the plant. However, a loophole allows the international sale of coca leaves if their cocaine alkaloid has been extracted to create a "flavoring agent," which is employed by Coca-Cola in its products.

Coca Nasa's first clash with Coca-Cola occurred in 2007 when the company released its Coca Sek energy drink. Coca-Cola responded with a trademark-infringement suit, swiftly dismissed by Colombia. Nevertheless, the International Narcotics Control Board temporarily banned the product from shelves before Coca Nasa successfully appealed the decision.

More recently, Coca Nasa's release of Coca Pola, a coca-based beer, triggered a similar response from Coca-Cola. The beverage giant sent a letter demanding that Coca Nasa cease using the name Coca Pola or any similar term that could be confused with its commercial brands. Despite the similarities in pronunciation with Coca-Cola, Curtidor emphasized that the name was simply a natural choice for a beer made with coca.

Exasperated by the lack of response from Coca-Cola, Coca Nasa approached Colombia's trademark agency to intervene, alleging that the registration of the trademark without consulting the Nasa Indigenous community amounted to an abusive and usurpative practice that violates their rights. The superintendent of industry and commerce has until September 20th to respond to Coca Nasa's claim, which, if granted, would prohibit Coca-Cola from using its iconic name.

Curtidor emphasizes that Coca Nasa would not object to Coca-Cola's use of the term "coca" in its name if they approached the matter with respect and engaged in dialogue for fair compensation. He believes that the issue at hand stems from Coca-Cola's sense of entitlement and points out that as a smaller company, they will not back down in the face of bullying tactics.

Coca-Cola has faced similar trademark infringement battles with smaller companies in the past. While it won a lawsuit against a Norwegian company selling Jallasprite due to its similarity with Sprite, it dropped a challenge against an Australian company selling Honest Tea, which coincidentally shared the name with a company in which Coca-Cola had previously invested. This case was deemed by some as a "bully lawsuit."

As the legal battle intensifies, Columbia's Indigenous business Coca Nasa stands firm in their fight to protect their cultural heritage and challenge Coca-Cola's trademark on the word "coca." Only time will tell how this David and Goliath-like struggle will unfold and whether a resolution that respects the rights of Indigenous communities can be achieved.