DOCSLIB.ORG

Pricing Strategy for Soft Drink Industry Submitted To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

IBS Executive Batch 2009-10 Pricing Strategy for Soft Drink Industry Submitted to: Submitted By: Amit Kumar (09ESHYD003) Ashwin Bhadviya (09ESHYD008) Deepa Patnaik (09ESHYD012) Jinson Rajgopalan (09ESHYD016) A Project for Accounting for Decision Making Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Entry Barriers in Soft Drink Market .......................................................................................................... 3 SWOT Analysis: ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Various Cola Brands Products Available: ............................................................................................... 5 Pricing Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Coke – Price ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Pepsi – Price ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Pricing strategy for Buyer and Suppliers ................................................................................. 6 Effect of Competition and Price War on Industry Profits:......................................................... 7 Pricing Strategy Used for Market Capitalization: ..................................................................... 7 Penetration Pricing: ................................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Soft drink Industry Introduction The soft-drink industry comprises companies that manufacture nonalcoholic beverages and carbonated mineral waters or concentrates and syrups for the manufacture of carbonated beverages. Soft drinks are available in glass bottles, aluminum cans and PET bottles for home consumption. Non-alcoholic soft drink beverage market can be divided into fruit drinks and soft drinks. Soft drinks can be further divided into carbonated and non-carbonated drinks. Cola, lemon and oranges are carbonated drinks while mango drinks come under non carbonated category. Cola products account for over 60% of the total soft drink market and include popular brands such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Thumps up etc. Non-cola segment constitutes for over 35% of the market. Until 1990s, domestic players like Parle Group (Thumps Up, Limca, Goldspot) dominated the soft drink market in India. However, with the advent of the MNC players like Pepsi (1991) and Coke (re-entered in 1993 after it was banned in 1977) in the early 1990s, the market control shifted towards them by the late 1990s. The per capita consumption of soft drinks in India is among the lowest in the world - 5 bottles per annum compared to the 800 bottles per annum in the USA. Delhi reports the highest per capita consumption in the country – 50 bottles per annum. The consumption of PET bottles is more in the urban areas [75% of total PET bottle (plastic bottles) consumption] whereas the sales of 200ml bottles were higher in the rural areas. According to a survey, 91% of the soft drink consumption in India is in the lower, lower middle and upper middle class section. Last one century witnessed the entry of various soft drink companies but only few of them were able to survive. The major among them are COKE and PEPSI. These are the only two companies that has shared the whole market between them and left a very small share for the remaining ones. This made the word cola drink synonymous to the word soft drink. We will basically focus on the pricing strategies adopted by these two affluence companies, how the change in the strategy of one of them reflects in the strategy of the other. Entry Barriers in Soft Drink Market Before coming on to the core topic of price strategy, we will discuss what are the factors that made the soft drink market a duopoly market. The several factors that make it very difficult for the competition to enter the soft drink market include: The factors that made the duopoly soft drink market and that make it very difficult for the competition to enter the soft drink market include: Network Bottling: Both Coke and PepsiCo have franchisee agreements with their existing bottler‟s who have rights in a certain geographic area in perpetuity. These agreements prohibit bottler‟s from taking on new competing brands for similar products. Also, with the recent consolidation among the bottler‟s and the backward integration with both Coke and Pepsi buying significant percent of bottling companies, it is very difficult for a firm entering to find bottler‟s willing to distribute their product. The other approach to try and build their bottling plants would be very capital-intensive effort with new efficient plant capital requirements in 2009 being more than $500 million. Advertising Spend: The advertising and marketing spend in the industry is very high by Coke, Pepsi and their bottler‟s. This makes it extremely difficult for an entrant to compete with the incumbents and gain any visibility. Brand Image / Loyalty: Coke and Pepsi have a long history of heavy advertising and this has earned them huge amount of brand equity and loyal customer‟s all over the world. This makes it virtually impossible for a new entrant to match this scale in this market place. Retailer Shelf Space (Retail Distribution): Retailers enjoy significant margins of 15-20% on these soft drinks for the shelf space they offer. These margins are quite significant for their bottom-line. This makes it tough for the new entrants to convince retailers to carry/substitute their new products for Coke and Pepsi. Fear of Retaliation: To enter into a market with entrenched rival behemoths like Pepsi and Coke is not easy as it could lead to price wars which would affect the new comer. SWOT Analysis: Strength: Pepsi Coke PepsiCo brands enjoy a high-profile global presence Coke brands enjoy a high-profile global presence Pepsi owns the world‟s 2nd Best-Selling Soft Drinks brand Four of the top five leading brand Constant product innovation Broad-based bottling strategy Aggressive marketing strategies using famous celebrities 47% of global volume sales in carbonates Weakness: Pepsi Coke Carbonates market is in decline Carbonates market is in decline Pepsi is the strongest in North America Over-complexity of relationship with bottlers in North America They only the target young crowd Execution ability Opportunities: Pepsi Coke Increased consumer concerns with regard to drinking Soft drinks volumes in the Asia-Pacific region forecast to water increase by over 45% Growth in the functional drinks industry Brands like Minute Maid Light and Minute Maid Premium Heart Wise are positioned well with the “Health-concerned” market Growth in RTD Tea , Asian Beverages and Healthier Use distribution strengths in Eastern Europe and Latin Beverages America Threats: Pepsi Coke Obesity and health concerns Growing "health-conscience" society Coca-Cola increases marketing and innovation PepsiCo‟s Gatorade, Tropicana and Aquafina are stronger spending to $400M globally brands Relying only on North America. Boycott in the Middle East. Protest against coke in India. Various Cola Brands Products Available: Coca Cola Pepsi Limca (1971) Teem (1960) Sprite (1999) Mountain Dew(1964) Low calorie cola Tab (1963) Diet Pepsi (1964) Diet Coke (1982) Lemon Lime Slice (1984) Caffeine free coke (1983) Caffeine Free Pepsi Cola (1987) Coca-Cola classic (1985) Sierra Mist (2000) New Coke (1985) Mountain Dew Code Red (2001) Cherry Coke (1985) Pepsi one (2005) Thums Up (1977) 7 up (1984) Kinley (2001) Aquafina (2001) Fanta (1993) Mirinda (1993) Maaza (1993) Slice (1993) Minute Maid Pulpy Orange Mountain Dew MDX (2005) (2008) Pricing Strategy In economics and business, the price is the assigned numerical monetary value of a good, service or asset .Price is also central to marketing where it is one of the four variables (4 P‟s namely Product, Price, promotion, Place) in the marketing mix that business people use to develop a marketing plan. Pricing is a big part of the marketing mix. Choosing the right price and the right pricing strategy is crucial to the marketing process. The price of the product is not something that is fixed .On the other hand the price of the product depends on many other factors .Sometimes the price of the product has got nothing to do with the actual product itself .The price may act as a way to attract target customers. The price of the product is decided keeping many things in mind. These things include factors like cost incurred on the product, target market, competitors, consumer buying capacity etc. Coke – Price Coke was a company ruling the markets before Pepsi entered. Earlier the price of coke was cost based i.e. it was decided on the cost which was spent on making the product plus the profit and other expenses. But after the emergence of other companies especially the likes of Pepsi, Coca-cola started with a pricing strategy based on the basis of competition .Nowadays more expenses are spent on advertising by soft -drink companies rather than on manufacturing
Recommended publications
  • Coca Cola India: Little Drops of Joy,” September 8, 2007

    Coca Cola India: Little Drops of Joy,” September 8, 2007

    oikos Global Case Writing Competition 2009 Corporate Sustainability Track Finalist Coca-Cola India’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy Hadiya Faheem, ICMR Center for Management Research, Hyderabad, India This is an Online Inspection Copy. Protected under Copyright Law. Reproduction Forbidden unless Authorized. Copyright © 2009 by the Author. All rights reserved. This case was prepared by Hadiya Faheem as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate the effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form by any means without permission. To order copies, call 0091-40-2343-0462/63 or write to ICMR, Plot # 49, Nagarjuna Hills, Hyderabad 500 082, India or email [email protected] oikos sustainability case collection http://www.oikos-international.org/projects/cwc oikos Global Case Writing Competition 2009 Finalist “Coca-Cola India undertakes a diverse range of activities for the benefit of the community across the country. As part of our CSR strategy, sustainable water management remains our top priority.” 1 Deepak Kaul, Regional Vice-President, South, The Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., in 2007. “It is in India where the company’s abuse of water resources have been challenged vociferously, and communities across India living around Coca-Cola’s bottling plants have organized in large numbers to demand an end to the mismanagement of water…. In response to the growing Indian campaigns against Coca-Cola, the company has decided to promote rainwater harvesting — a traditional Indian practice — in and around its bottling plants in India.
  • Product Differentiation and Mergers in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry

    Product Differentiation and Mergers in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry

    Product Differentiation and Mergers in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry JEAN-PIERRE DUBE´ University of Chicago Graduate School of Business Chicago, IL 60637 [email protected] I simulate the competitive impact of several soft drink mergers from the 1980s on equilibrium prices and quantities. An unusual feature of soft drink demand is that, at the individual purchase level, households regularly select a variety of soft drink products. Specifically, on a given trip households may select multiple soft drink products and multiple units of each. A concern is that using a standard discrete choice model that assumes single unit purchases may understate the price elasticity of demand. Tomodel the sophisticated choice behavior generating this multiple discreteness,Iuse a household-level scanner data set. Market demand is then computed by aggregating the household estimates. Combining the aggregate demand estimates with a model of static oligopoly, I then run the merger simulations. Despite moderate price increases, I find substantial welfare losses from the proposed merger between Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper. I also find large price increases and corresponding welfare losses from the proposed merger between Pepsi and 7 UP and, more notably, between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. 1. Introduction With the advent of aggregate brand-level data collected at supermarket checkout scanners, researchers have begun to use structural econo- metric models for policy analysis. The rich content of scanner data enables the estimation of demand systems and their corresponding cross-price elasticities. The areas of merger and antitrust policy have been strong beneficiaries of these improved data. Recent advances in structural approaches to empirical merger analysis consist of combining Iamvery grateful to my thesis committee: David Besanko, Tim Conley, Sachin Gupta, and Rob Porter.
  • Carbonated Soft Drinks in the US Through 2025

    Carbonated Soft Drinks in the US Through 2025

    Carbonated Soft Drinks in the U.S. through 2025: Market Essentials 2021 Edition (To be published September 2021. Data through 2020. Market projections through 2025.) More than 120 Excel tables plus an executive summary detailing trends and comprehensive profiles of leading companies, their brands and their strategies. his comprehensive market research report on the number-two T beverage category examines trends and top companies' For A Full strategies. It provides up-to-date statistics on leading brands, Catalog of packaging, quarterly growth and channels of distribution. It also Reports and offers data on regional markets, pricing, demographics, Databases, advertising, five-year growth projections and more. Go To The report presents the data in Excel spreadsheets, which it supplements with a concise executive summary highlighting key bmcreports.com developments including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic as well as a detailed discussion of the leading carbonated soft drink (CSD) companies. INSIDE: REPORT OVERVIEW A brief discussion of key AVAILABLE FORMAT & features of this report. 2 PRICING TABLE OF CONTENTS Direct Download A detailed outline of this Excel sheets, PDF, PowerPoint & Word report’s contents and data tables. 7 $4,395 To learn more, to place an advance order or to inquire about SAMPLE TEXT AND additional user licenses call: Charlene Harvey +1 212.688.7640 INFOGRAPHICS ext. 1962 [email protected] A few examples of this report’s text, data content layout and style. 13 HAVE Contact Charlene Harvey: 212-688-7640 x 1962 QUESTIONS? [email protected] Beverage Marketing Corporation 850 Third Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-688-7640 Fax: 212-826-1255 The answers you need Carbonated Soft Drinks in the U.S.
  • Strategic Analysis of the Coca-Cola Company

    Strategic Analysis of the Coca-Cola Company

    STRATEGIC ANALYSIS OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY Dinesh Puravankara B Sc (Dairy Technology) Gujarat Agricultural UniversityJ 991 M Sc (Dairy Chemistry) Gujarat Agricultural University, 1994 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Faculty of Business Administration Executive MBA O Dinesh Puravankara 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author APPROVAL Name: Dinesh Puravankara Degree: Master of Business Administration Title of Project: Strategic Analysis of The Coca-Cola Company. Supervisory Committee: Mark Wexler Senior Supervisor Professor Neil R. Abramson Supervisor Associate Professor Date Approved: SIMON FRASER UNIVEliSITY LIBRARY Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the "lnstitutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: ~http:llir.lib.sfu.calhandle/l8921112>)and, without changing the content, to translate the thesislproject or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
  • Coca-Cola Annual Report 2021

    Coca-Cola Annual Report 2021

    Coca-Cola Annual Report 2021 Form 10-K (NYSE:KO) Published: February 25th, 2021 PDF generated by stocklight.com UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 001-02217 ko-20201231_g1.jpg COCA COLA CO (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 58-0628465 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) One Coca-Cola Plaza Atlanta, Georgia 30313 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (404) 676-2121 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.25 Par Value KO New York Stock Exchange Floating Rate Notes Due 2021 KO21C New York Stock Exchange 0.75% Notes Due 2023 KO23B New York Stock Exchange 0.500% Notes Due 2024 KO24 New York Stock Exchange 1.875% Notes Due 2026 KO26 New York Stock Exchange 0.750% Notes Due 2026 KO26C New York Stock Exchange 1.125% Notes Due 2027 KO27 New York Stock Exchange 0.125% Notes Due 2029 KO29A New York Stock Exchange 1.250% Notes Due 2031 KO31 New York Stock Exchange 0.375% Notes Due 2033 KO33 New York Stock Exchange 1.625% Notes Due 2035 KO35 New York Stock Exchange 1.100% Notes Due 2036 KO36 New York Stock Exchange 0.800% Notes Due 2040 KO40B New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None __________________________________________________ Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
  • Chapter I: Introduction

    Chapter I: Introduction

    CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION The Coca-Cola Company is the world’s largest beverage company. Along with Coca-Cola, recognized as the world’s most-valuable brand, the Company markets four of the world’s top five soft drink brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite and a wide range of other beverages, including water, juices and juice drinks, tea, coffee and sports drinks. Through one of the world’s largest beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries enjoy The Coca-Cola Company’s beverages at a rate exceeding 1.6 billion servings each day. Coca-Cola in India is the country’s leading beverage Company with an unmatched portfolio of beverages. The Company manufactures and markets leading beverage brands like Coca- Cola, Thums Up, Fanta, Fanta Apple, Limca, Sprite, Maaza, Minute Maid, Burn, Kinley and Georgia range of tea coffee, Nestea and Fanta Fun Taste. One of the early investors in India, the Coca-Cola system provides direct and indirect employment to more than 1, 50,000 people. The Coca-Cola System in India has more than 1 million retailers and our business has a multiplier effect on employment and earning opportunities. Coca-Cola in India is the largest domestic buyer of sugar and one of the top buyers of mango pulp. The Coca-Cola System in India business also positively impacts industries like Glass, Plastics, Resin Manufacturers, Sugar, Automobiles, White Goods Manufacturers, Banking etc. The Coca-Cola Company has always placed high value on good citizenship. At the heart of business is a mission statement called the Coca-Cola Promise - “The Coca-Cola Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone that it touches.” This basic proposition entails that the Company’s business should refresh the markets, protect, preserve and enhance the environment and strengthen the community.
  • COCA-COLA 1 the Coca-Cola Company Nick White Lourdes

    COCA-COLA 1 the Coca-Cola Company Nick White Lourdes

    Running Head: COCA-COLA 1 The Coca-Cola Company Nick White Lourdes University COCA-COLA 2 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………….………………………...3 Domains …………………………………………………………...…………….………......5 Management …………………………………………………………....…………...5 Legal Environment ………………………………………………………………….8 Economic Environment …………………………………………………………….11 International Business ……………………………………………………………...14 Summary …………………………………………………………………………………...17 References ………………………………………………………………………………….18 COCA-COLA 3 The Coca-Cola Company Introduction Beginning in 1886, pharmacist Dr. John S. Pemberton created a distinctive flavored syrup that, when mixed with carbonated water, became what most people know today as “Coca-Cola.” Fast forward to today, The Coca-Cola Company is currently the world’s largest, non-alcoholic beverage producer, bringing in over $31 billion in net operating revenues in 2018 (Coca-Cola History, 2019). Besides being the largest producer of soft drinks, Coca-Cola has a few other strengths. First, Coca-Cola has a solid brand identity, meaning its logo and name are well known around the world in over 200 countries. Moreover, the company is known for producing not only its main product, but it is well known to produce a wide variety of non-alcoholic beverages. Coca-Cola also has a high retention of its customer base because, while there are alternatives to Coca-Cola, there is no other alternative that tastes exactly the same as a traditional Coca-Cola. Besides having and acknowledging strengths, The Coca-Cola Company does have its weaknesses. While the company excels in producing beverages across all of its product lines, that is the only type of product it produces. This is a drawback for Coca-Cola, as it limits the company's potential growth and leaves a way for competitors, like PepsiCo (sometimes referred to as Pepsi) who owns the Lay’s Potato Chip company, to expand into different markets.
  • Exhibit Sales

    Exhibit Sales

    Exhibit Sales are OPEN! Exhibit at InterBev for access to: • Beverage producers and distributors • Owners and CEOs • Sales/marketing professionals • Packaging and process engineers • Production, distribution and warehousing managers • R&D personnel Specialty Pavilions: • New Beverage Pavilion • Green Pavilion • Organic/Natural Pavilion NEW FOR 2012! “Where the beverage industry does business.” October 16-18, 2012 Owned & Operated by: Sands Expo & Convention Center Las Vegas, Nevada, USA Supported by: www.InterBev.com To learn more, email [email protected] or call 770.618.5884 Soft Drinks Internationa l – July 2012 ConTEnTS 1 news Europe 4 Africa 6 Middle East 8 India 10 The leading English language magazine published in Europe, devoted exclusively to the manufacture, distribution and marketing of soft drinks, fruit juices and bottled water. Asia Pacific 12 Americas 14 Ingredients 16 features Acerola, Baobab And Juices & Juice Drinks 18 Ginseng 28 Waters & Water Plus Drinks 20 Extracts from these plants offer beverage manufacturers the opportunity to enrich Carbonates 22 products in many ways, claims Oliver Sports & Energy 24 Hehn. Adult/Teas 26 Re-design 30 Packaging designed to ‘leave an impres - Packaging sion’ has contributed to impressive 38 growth, according to bottlegreen. Environment 40 People Closure Encounters 30 42 Rather than placing a generic screw top Events 43 onto a container at the very end of the design process, manufacturers need to begin with the closure, writes Peter McGeough. Adding Value To Bottled Water 34 From Silent Salesman 32 In the future, most volume growth in bot - Steve Osborne explores the marketing tled water will come from developing opportunities presented by multi-media markets, so past dynamics are likely to regulars technologies and how these might be continue.
  • CASE 1 3Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India

    CASE 1 3Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India

    CASE 13 Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India THE BEVERAGE BATTLEFIELD had to resort to using a costly imported substitute, estergum, or they had to fi nance their own R&D in order to fi nd a substitute In 2007, the President and CEO of Coca-Cola asserted that Coke ingredient. Many failed and quickly withdrew from the industry. has had a rather rough run in India; but now it seems to be getting Competing with the segment of carbonated soft drinks is an- its positioning right. Similarly, PepsiCo’s Asia chief asserted that other beverage segment composed of noncarbonated fruit drinks. India is the beverage battlefi eld for this decade and beyond. These are a growth industry because Indian consumers perceive Even though the government had opened its doors wide to for- fruit drinks to be natural, healthy, and tasty. The leading brand has eign companies, the experience of the world’s two giant soft drinks traditionally been Parle’s Frooti, a mango-fl avored drink, which companies in India during the 1990s and the beginning of the new was also exported to franchisees in the United States, Britain, Por- millennium was not a happy one. Both companies experienced a tugal, Spain, and Mauritius. range of unexpected problems and diffi cult situations that led them to recognize that competing in India requires special knowledge, skills, and local expertise. In many ways, Coke and Pepsi manag- OPENING INDIAN MARKET ers had to learn the hard way that “what works here” does not In 1991, India experienced an economic crisis of exceptional se- always “work there.” “The environment in India is challenging, but verity, triggered by the rise in imported oil prices following the we’re learning how to crack it,” says an industry leader.
  • This Opinion Is a Precedent of the TTAB the Coca-Cola Company V

    This Opinion Is a Precedent of the TTAB the Coca-Cola Company V

    This Opinion Is a Precedent of the TTAB Mailed: June 28, 2021 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ The Coca-Cola Company v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. _____ Cancellation Nos. 92063353 & 92064398 Holly Hawkins Saporito, Lauren R. Timmons, and Marcos Alvarez of Alston & Bird LLP for The Coca-Cola Company. John M. Rannells of Baker and Rannells, PA for Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. _____ Before Taylor, Lynch, and Larkin Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judge: I. Background Petitioner The Coca-Cola Company seeks to cancel the following two registrations owned by Respondent Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc.:1 1 These cancellation proceedings began as a single proceeding involving two registrations. The Board subsequently granted the parties’ motion to divide, resulting in two separate proceedings. 12 TTABVUE. However, the Board later noted that the parties filed “nearly Cancellation Nos. 92063353 & 92064398 THUMS UP in standard characters2 for: Colas; Concentrates, syrups or powders used in the preparation of soft drinks; Soft drinks, namely, sodas in International Class 32. LIMCA in standard characters3 for: Concentrates, syrups or powders used in the preparation of soft drinks; Soft drinks, namely, sodas in International Class 32. While the Petition to Cancel included numerous grounds for cancellation, the only one Petitioner pursued at trial is that Respondent has misrepresented the source of the goods on which the marks are used, under Trademark Act Section 14(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).4 The other pleaded claims that Petitioner did not address in its briefing are waived. Joel Gott Wines LLC v.
  • System Energy and Recycling : a Study of the Beverage Industry

    System Energy and Recycling : a Study of the Beverage Industry

    LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 510.84 *o.2>30 ' AUG. 51.976 Ihe person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN itffr PR IPR ran at * i i L . dr JUL 1980 JUN 1 DEC * & fflP L161 — O-1096 0. w fcu< i ENGINEERING LIBRARY .^3 y^ SHY OF ILLINOIS CONFERENCE ROD!, ;3ANA, ILLINOIS lutation UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/systemenergyrecyOOhann CAC Document No. 23 Revised SYSTEM ENERGY AND RECYCLING: A STUDY OF THE BEVERAGE INDUSTRY By Bruce Hannon Assistant Professor of General Engineering and Staff Member with Center for Advanced Computation Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Urbana, Illinois 61801 January 5, 1972 Revised March .17, 1973 ABSTRACT An energy analysis has been performed on the soft drink, beer and milk container systems. The study shows that the energy required to de- liver a unit of beverage to the consumer is about three times more in throwaway glass containers than in returnable bottles or bimetallic cans. The energy cost of recycling glass (collecting, separating and remelting) is greater than the comparable cost of mining materials for new bottles. All aluminum cans are about 38% more energy intensive than bimetallic cans.
  • Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Beverage Excise Taxes Imposed by Maine Public Law 629 *

    Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Beverage Excise Taxes Imposed by Maine Public Law 629 *

    FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BEVERAGE EXCISE TAXES IMPOSED BY MAINE PUBLIC LAW 629 * SOE Staff Paper #575 October 2008 Todd Gabe Associate Professor School of Economics, University of Maine Executive Summary: The purpose of this study is to examine the fiscal and economic impacts of the new and increased taxes on malt liquor (i.e., beer), wine and soft drinks imposed by Public Law 629. By fiscal impacts, we mean the increase in beverage taxes that would be paid by households and businesses. Our analysis suggests that Public Law 629 would lead to an estimated $40.7 million in additional beverage taxes per year. Economic impacts refer to the changes in statewide economic activity (e.g., sales revenue, employment and income) that would occur as a result of the increased beverage taxes. Here, we find that – including multiplier effects – Public Law 629 would lead to an estimated statewide reduction in sales revenue of $26.3 million per year, with an accompanying loss of 395 full- and part-time jobs that provide $8.8 million in income (i.e., wages and salaries). Empirical results presented in this study are based on actual data and, in some cases, figures that are estimated using information from government and beverage industry sources. In addition, findings from published academic studies are used to make assumptions about the extent to which the beverage excise taxes imposed by Public Law 629 will raise retail prices and, in turn, how strongly consumers will respond to these price hikes. Results presented in this report are meant to be one piece of information, considered along with other economic and non-economic issues, used to inform the debate about Public Law 629.