Dont support Starbucks Coffee anymore!

[philothea]

FWIW, trademark law is set up so that they pretty much [i]have[/i] to prosecute every possible instance of infringement.

And all publicly traded corporations wind up being evil.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

This reminds me of the time the guy in texas wanted to brew a beer that seemed to be a cross between Lone Star and Shiner Bock. He called it Star Bock. Lawsuitarity ensued.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 6 2005, 10:59 AM']FWIW, trademark law is set up so that they pretty much [i]have[/i] to prosecute every possible instance of infringement.

And all publicly traded corporations wind up being evil.
[right][snapback]813278[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ever watched "The Corporation"? Fascinating little documentary.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Now we don't want to reject Starbucks just because some of her "members" do things that are wrong sometimes. Starbucks is still a human and earthly reality as well.


carp.. I'm just trying to justify having just purchased the Christmas pack yesterday.
dang it!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 6 2005, 11:08 AM']Now we don't want to reject Starbucks just because some of her "members" do things that are wrong sometimes. Starbucks is still a human and earthly reality as well.
carp.. I'm just trying to justify having just purchased the Christmas pack yesterday.
dang it!
[right][snapback]813283[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Did you get the chocolate and coffee one? That looked really yummy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 6 2005, 11:09 AM']Did you get the chocolate and coffee one? That looked really yummy.
[right][snapback]813284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I got this thing that has like six blends of coffee. Guatamala blend, Kenya blend, Christmas blend, sumatra blend.. and some other stuff.
I'm drinking the Guatamala blend right now.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

It could be ruled an IP violation if she intended the name to be similar to Starbucks. Let's look at some facts.

1. There is no space between 'Sam' and 'bucks.' If it were 'Sam Buck's Coffee,' there wouldn't be much for the lawsuit to stand on.
2. You can't manipulate your name to sound like a name brand. Even if your name is "Star Buck," you couldn't sell coffee, or just about any food product, under that name. You could possibly get your name in the brand, but it would have to be a name distinct from Starbucks.
3. The name is similar in length and pronunciation to Starbucks. If it were Samanthabucks, it wouldn't be too much of an issue. 'Sam' and 'Star' are just too close to each other. If I came up with a chocolate flavored soft drink and called it 'Choca Cola' or even 'Choco Cola,' I'd likely be sued. With 'Chocolate Cola' I'd be pretty safe.

These IP laws are written to protect all individuals and companies. It's also a matter of who got there first. It does seem fishy that Ms. Buck named her coffee shop 'Sambuck's.' I don't think she would have come up with that name if it weren't for 'Starbucks' popularity.

[homeschoolmom]

If she'd started her shop first, she'd have more standing. As it is, she named her shop knowing it would cause a lawsuit.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Dec 6 2005, 11:24 AM']It could be ruled an IP violation if she intended the name to be similar to Starbucks.  Let's look at some facts.

1. There is no space between 'Sam' and 'bucks.'  If it were 'Sam Buck's Coffee,' there wouldn't be much for the lawsuit to stand on.
2. You can't manipulate your name to sound like a name brand.  Even if your name is "Star Buck," you couldn't sell coffee, or just about any food product, under that name. You could possibly get your name in the brand, but it would have to be a name distinct from Starbucks.
3.  The name is similar in length and pronunciation to Starbucks.  If it were Samanthabucks, it wouldn't be too much of an issue.  'Sam' and 'Star' are just too close to each other. If I came up with a chocolate flavored soft drink and called it 'Choca Cola' or even 'Choco Cola,' I'd likely be sued.  With 'Chocolate Cola' I'd be pretty safe.

These IP laws are written to protect all individuals and companies. It's also a matter of who got there first. It does seem fishy that Ms. Buck named her coffee shop 'Sambuck's.'  I don't think she would have come up with that name if it weren't for 'Starbucks' popularity.
[right][snapback]813294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep. I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on.

Although she'll get plenty of sympathy business out of this by being a small business martyr.

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 6 2005, 09:44 AM']I will continue to buy coffee at Starbucks when I don't have time to make it at home in the morning. I buy coffee beans for my home at Trader Joe's. I will also continue to buy certain other drinks from time to time at Starbucks.

And I will not feel one iota of guilt about it.

I am all for supporting local businesses, and I make an effort to do so whenever possible. I think it's important to, as much as possible, keep my dollars here benefitting my local economy. Last week, for example, I purchased a gift from a local retailer which I could have gotten for less by ordering it online. I also patronize an independently owned local bookstore from time to time -- although I also still occasionally buy books from Borders.

But in the end, business is business. This woman took a risk in naming her store after herself. If she didn't get proper legal advice from a qualified intellectual property attorney about the name before registering the name of her store, that's her own fault. Harsh? Maybe. But she made the choice to use that name, and I'm sure she did so in full knowledge that it sounded like Starbucks. She took a business risk, and is now paying the price. And, she's getting plenty of free advertising out of the deal. I don't feel one bit sorry for her.
[right][snapback]813226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Your missing the point, so basically your'e saying that she can't use her own name for her own business. If anything , she had the name that sounded like Starbucks before they were even around. Everyone is missing the entire point, its her business, and her name ,she should be able to use it whatever the heck way she wants. No one will ever confuse(except maybe if they're dumb) Sambucks with Starbucks , I used to go to Starbucks all the time, and would never have gotten such a big chain and logo confused with her hole in the wall coffee shop. Whatever dudes.

God Bless and Mary Protect

Ricky

Edited December 6, 2005 by reelguy227

[tojo]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 6 2005, 09:20 AM']

Its the official drink of Catholics!

I guess the "Church Faithful" tag is getting a litte farther away!
[right][snapback]813203[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gee, and I thought the Blood of Christ was! :

[Jaime]

[quote name='reelguy227' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:18 PM']Your missing the point, so basically your'e saying that she can't use her own name for her own business. If anything , she had the name that sounded like Starbucks before they were even around. Everyone is missing the entire point, its her business, and her name ,she should be able to use it whatever the heck way she wants. No one will ever confues Sambucks with Starbucks , I used to go to Starbucks all the time, and would never have gotten such a big chain and logo confused with her hole in the wall coffee shop. Whatever dudes.

God Bless and Mary Protect

Ricky
[right][snapback]813362[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So what if I went and got my name changed to Target? Or Walter Mart? Or how about Victoria Secret? Because its my name do I get to open a store with it then?

Nope. Trademarking is trademarking. There are actors who had to change their names because another actor had it registered already. Just because its given to you doesn't mean you can market it.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:23 PM']So what if I went and got my name changed to Target?  Or Walter Mart?  Or how about Victoria Secret?  Because its my name do I get to open a store with it then? 

Nope.  Trademarking is trademarking.  There are actors who had to change their names because another actor had it registered already.  Just because its given to you doesn't mean you can market it.
[right][snapback]813371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Right. And it's not like she opened a seafood distributorship -- it was a coffee shop. She was definitely intending to play off the notoriety of the Starbucks name for her coffee company by using her own name. Starbucks isn't making her give up her name altogether. They're just saying she can't use it to sell coffee.

[Jaime]

Incidentally Abby, I've registered the SN of Sojourner on several Catholic boards.

You'll need to find another monicker. People are getting confused.

[tojo]

lol


Well, I'm Tomasio (tm) and/or Tomasio127 (tm) everywhere.

Although I have yet yo use it, I also have Topete (tm) locked in.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:40 PM']Incidentally Abby, I've registered the SN of Sojourner on several Catholic boards. 

You'll need to find another monicker.  People are getting confused.
[right][snapback]813390[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am quite sure my case would prevail in court. I have Dennis the Intellectual Property Attorney from a Big Firm in my corner.

[Timothy]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 6 2005, 11:26 AM']If she'd started her shop first, she'd have more standing. As it is, she named her shop knowing it would cause a lawsuit.
[right][snapback]813295[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm in agreeance

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:46 PM']I am quite sure my case would prevail in court. I have Dennis the Intellectual Property Attorney from a Big Firm in my corner.
[right][snapback]813408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks for the heads up! I trademarked "Dennis the Intellectual Property Attorney" three years ago.

There's some Christmas cash just waiting for me!!

[Ash Wednesday]

The thing is, she isn't really "using her name." She has taken Sam Buck and made them a single word, i.e. "Sambucks." Of course she's referencing Starbucks -- who are we kidding here?

Sometimes I think boycotting mammoth companies for a cause is like throwing straws at a tank. But in general, I think we should be supporting smaller businesses over big ones for a lot of reasons if we can help it -- the product is usually better, for one thing.

I liked Starbucks when they were like a "local" company to us in the Seattle area in the early 90s. Their stuff was higher quality back then. When Starbucks became a mammoth company I switched to our local coffee house. As for this woman, I think Starbucks has a valid case. Sure, it seems pretty lame but I think it is a trademark violation.

But hey, look at all the publicity the woman got over it. Maybe she's not a bad businesswoman after all!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 6 2005, 12:49 PM']Thanks for the heads up!  I trademarked "Dennis the Intellectual Property Attorney" three years ago. 

There's some Christmas cash just waiting for me!!
[right][snapback]813414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ahhh, but did you trademark "Dennis the Intellectual Property Attorney From a Big Firm (tm)"? I think not.

Checkmate!