Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Judge Changes Mind, Rules for Coca-Cola in Suit by Songwriter

By John Pacenti
March 29, 2011

Miami Beach songwriter Rafael “Rafa” Vergara Hermosilla bested Coca-Cola in 2010 when a federal judge issued an injunction in Vergara's fight for credit for the international mega hit of “Wavin' Flag” in Spanish. But litigation is a marathon, not a sprint, and Coca-Cola recently won the more important Round 2. Federal District Judge K. Michael Moore, of the Southern District of Florida, has granted Coca-Cola's renewed motion for summary judgment, dismissing Vergara's claim of copyright infringement by noting that when Vergara wrote the Spanish translation version of “Wavin' Flag,” he assigned the rights of his work to Universal Music Group. Hermosilla v. The Coca-Cola Co., 10-21418.

In a footnote, however, the judge opened the door for a breach-of-contract suit by Vergara against the soft-drink maker for failing to deliver on a promise to give him songwriting credit. “This court takes no position on the issue of whether Coca-Cola has, in all instances, provided adequate attribution to Vergara under the assignment contract,” Moore wrote.

Moore relied on March 2010 e-mail exchanges between Vergara and Jose Puig, vice president of marketing at Universal Latin America. Vergara wrote that he was not motivated by money, and “my only request is that my credits are respected as producer and adapter of the Spanish versions.” Puig responded: “You can count on the credits on the track.”

In 2009, Vergara took “Wavin' Flag” by hip-hop artist K'naan and wrote Spanish lyrics to be used by Coca-Cola in its World Cup promotions. The song, sung by David Bisbal and K'naan, took off in Spanish-speaking markets, going to Number 1 in several countries. Vergara filed suit, seeking credit for the song. In June 2010, Moore issued a preliminary injunction ordering Coca-Cola to give Vergara credit. But in his latest eight-page ruling, the judge said the e-mails provided more information that allowed him to change his mind about the case.

The attorneys for Coca-Cola had no comment on the case. Vergara's attorneys, James Kaplan and Michael Foster, partners at Miami's Kaplan Zeena, say they will appeal the decision. “There are substantial flaws in the judge's decision,” Kaplan says. “It's very hard to understand how we went from likely to prevail in June to out of court in February based on one cryptic e-mail.”

Moore's decision came with the case three weeks away from trial. Moore said it was a mistake for the plaintiff to rely on the judge's previous decision. “Vergara also relies heavily on this court's prior ruling granting a preliminary injunction. This reliance is misplaced,” the judge wrote.

Now it's too late to give his client credit, Kaplan says. Only money will compensate for being left out of the credit for the big hit, he said.


John Pacenti is a Staff Writer in South Florida for The Daily Business Review, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.

Miami Beach songwriter Rafael “Rafa” Vergara Hermosilla bested Coca-Cola in 2010 when a federal judge issued an injunction in Vergara's fight for credit for the international mega hit of “Wavin' Flag” in Spanish. But litigation is a marathon, not a sprint, and Coca-Cola recently won the more important Round 2. Federal District Judge K. Michael Moore, of the Southern District of Florida, has granted Coca-Cola's renewed motion for summary judgment, dismissing Vergara's claim of copyright infringement by noting that when Vergara wrote the Spanish translation version of “Wavin' Flag,” he assigned the rights of his work to Universal Music Group. Hermosilla v. The Coca-Cola Co., 10-21418.

In a footnote, however, the judge opened the door for a breach-of-contract suit by Vergara against the soft-drink maker for failing to deliver on a promise to give him songwriting credit. “This court takes no position on the issue of whether Coca-Cola has, in all instances, provided adequate attribution to Vergara under the assignment contract,” Moore wrote.

Moore relied on March 2010 e-mail exchanges between Vergara and Jose Puig, vice president of marketing at Universal Latin America. Vergara wrote that he was not motivated by money, and “my only request is that my credits are respected as producer and adapter of the Spanish versions.” Puig responded: “You can count on the credits on the track.”

In 2009, Vergara took “Wavin' Flag” by hip-hop artist K'naan and wrote Spanish lyrics to be used by Coca-Cola in its World Cup promotions. The song, sung by David Bisbal and K'naan, took off in Spanish-speaking markets, going to Number 1 in several countries. Vergara filed suit, seeking credit for the song. In June 2010, Moore issued a preliminary injunction ordering Coca-Cola to give Vergara credit. But in his latest eight-page ruling, the judge said the e-mails provided more information that allowed him to change his mind about the case.

The attorneys for Coca-Cola had no comment on the case. Vergara's attorneys, James Kaplan and Michael Foster, partners at Miami's Kaplan Zeena, say they will appeal the decision. “There are substantial flaws in the judge's decision,” Kaplan says. “It's very hard to understand how we went from likely to prevail in June to out of court in February based on one cryptic e-mail.”

Moore's decision came with the case three weeks away from trial. Moore said it was a mistake for the plaintiff to rely on the judge's previous decision. “Vergara also relies heavily on this court's prior ruling granting a preliminary injunction. This reliance is misplaced,” the judge wrote.

Now it's too late to give his client credit, Kaplan says. Only money will compensate for being left out of the credit for the big hit, he said.


John Pacenti is a Staff Writer in South Florida for The Daily Business Review, an ALM affiliate publication of Entertainment Law & Finance.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?