Starbucks sends cease and desist to local pub for serving a beer called Frappicino, Owner sends back
30 replies, posted
[url]http://elitedaily.com/news/world/missouri-bar-responds-cease-desist-starbucks-epic-letter-6-check-photos/[/url]
[quote]
From the pub owner's Facebook:
“So quick little story. Last week I received a cease and desist letter from the attorneys at Starbucks. Apparently there was a beer on Untappd that someone named ‘Frappicino.’ 3 people had checked into said beer. 3. “Starbucks did not like that. So I got a letter. They wanted me to remove the beer and promise never to use their names again. They also wanted my written response and guarantee. Here is their letter. And also my response.”
[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Starbucks-1.png[/img]
[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Starbucks-21.png[/img]
[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Exit-6-1.png[/img]
[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Exit-6-21.png[/img]
[img]http://cdn29.elitedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/906206_707781272574113_105803906_o1.png[/img]
[/quote]
Fucking Starbucks.....
fucking brilliant
That was a fucking incredible response that the pub owner gave.
Before everyone jumps on the "Starbucks is a Scumbag" train, the truth is that they [I]have[/I] to defend their trademark or they'll lose it.
They know this guy isn't a threat to them, he doesn't even serve coffee, but if they don't do this then they'll lose that protection and all the other big name coffee makers will be able to start using it freely.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43406201]Before everyone jumps on the "Starbucks is a Scumbag" train, the truth is that they [I]have[/I] to defend their trademark or they'll lose it.
They know this guy isn't a threat to them, he doesn't even serve coffee, but if they don't do this then they'll lose that protection and all the other big name coffee makers will be able to start using it freely.[/QUOTE]
Not if they're not competing.
A bar doesn't compete with a coffee shop, and a beer doesn't compete with a coffee. They wouldn't lose the trademark if three people used it to refer to a beer.
Anyone else notice that there was more than one character of difference? Two characters were different:
Frappicino
Frappuccino
Why not just call it Fappicino
They said by one letter, not character
I never knew frappicino was a Starbucks thing. I thought it was just another general name for a type of coffee.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;43407029]Not if they're not competing.
A bar doesn't compete with a coffee shop, and a beer doesn't compete with a coffee. They wouldn't lose the trademark if three people used it to refer to a beer.[/QUOTE]
they are legally required to defend it or other companies can use this as an example in court
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43406201]Before everyone jumps on the "Starbucks is a Scumbag" train, the truth is that they [I]have[/I] to defend their trademark or they'll lose it.
They know this guy isn't a threat to them, he doesn't even serve coffee, but if they don't do this then they'll lose that protection and all the other big name coffee makers will be able to start using it freely.[/QUOTE]
I see lots of people saying this but how does this even work? What if they weren't aware of that? Would they lose their trademark because they didn't notice some dude in Missouri sold three beers?
Also personally I find the idea of trademarking the name of the drinks or meals in a restaurant/coffeehouse/whatever a bit silly.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;43407810]I see lots of people saying this but how does this even work? What if they weren't aware of that? Would they lose their trademark because they didn't notice some dude in Missouri sold three beers?
Also personally I find the idea of trademarking the name of the drinks or meals in a restaurant/coffeehouse/whatever a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
If they don't know about it, no they're obviously not going to be able to defend it. every company does this though. There was a mural on a building near my uni with Disney characters on it but I think literally the day Disney found out, they demanded that it be removed. Companies have to protect their intellectual property constantly.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;43407810]I see lots of people saying this but how does this even work? What if they weren't aware of that? Would they lose their trademark because they didn't notice some dude in Missouri sold three beers?[/QUOTE]
If they didn't S&D the bar, and another coffee chain starts selling something with a name similar to a Starbucks trademark, the other coffee chain would be able to cite them not S&D'ing the bar as leverage in court to justify stealing the name. This is often the reason for many of the sillier big-company lawsuits.
[editline]4th January 2014[/editline]
It's not a lawsuit because they're actually being hurt by a small bar selling beer, it's covering their ass in future legal battles.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;43407810]I see lots of people saying this but how does this even work? What if they weren't aware of that? Would they lose their trademark because they didn't notice some dude in Missouri sold three beers?
Also personally I find the idea of trademarking the name of the drinks or meals in a restaurant/coffeehouse/whatever a bit silly.[/QUOTE]
Well its not quite so black and white. Obviously if they didn't know it wouldn't be their fault, and a judge wouldn't invalidate it in that situation. Now if it can be proven that they knew and they didn't do anything, then the judge WOULD invalidate it.
In this case, someone reported this to Starbucks, and thus a paper trail of them knowing was started.
Why can't all companies be like Unilever? When the Cornetto was, unknowingly to them, featured in both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz they didn't give a single shit.
[QUOTE=Scot;43408147]Why can't all companies be like Unilever? When the Cornetto was, unknowingly to them, featured in both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz they didn't give a single shit.[/QUOTE]
Because that's free publicity for their own brand.
Now if Baskin Robbins started selling Cornettos, they'd go apeshit on them.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43408165]Because that's free publicity for their own brand.
Now if Baskin Robbins started selling Cornettos, they'd go apeshit on them.[/QUOTE]
They're selling beer though not coffee. It is still free publicity.
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43406201]Before everyone jumps on the "Starbucks is a Scumbag" train, the truth is that they [I]have[/I] to defend their trademark or they'll lose it.
They know this guy isn't a threat to them, he doesn't even serve coffee, but if they don't do this then they'll lose that protection and all the other big name coffee makers will be able to start using it freely.[/QUOTE]
Technically they didn't even spell it the same so what Trademark were they violating? If you can claim trademark on stuff that's just similar, well, look at what Apple and Samsung have been doing. "Oh a tap is just a non-moving swipe, so we're protected by our patent for swiping, right judge?"
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43408225]Technically they didn't even spell it the same so what Trademark were they violating? If you can claim trademark on stuff that's just similar, well, look at what Apple and Samsung have been doing. "Oh a tap is just a non-moving swipe, so we're protected by our patent for swiping, right judge?"[/QUOTE]
Patents are completely different. Trademarks are names, patents are designs.
[QUOTE=Scot;43408182]They're selling beer though not coffee. It is still free publicity.[/QUOTE]
They're using the name of the coffee in another product. Even if it isn't coffee it's still the name being tied to the wrong product.
Today I learned large companies are required by law to patent troll small businesses.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43408701]Today I learned large companies are required by law to patent troll small businesses.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a patent, it's a trademark, and it's not trolling, it's preventing the trademark from being invalidated.
[editline]3rd January 2014[/editline]
It's like how cola manufacturers try to enforce a rule with restaurants to clarify just what cola a customer is getting. Coke doesn't want you to walk into a restaurant, order a coke, get a Pepsi and just drink it, because it makes their brand generic, it kills the value of the trademark, and if proper protection isn't pursued, the trademark is invalidated. Like, literally, if a company does not actively protect its trademark, the brand could be at risk of being considered generic, and a court could override the trademark.
And on the other side of the fence, there are laws in place to protect businesses from larger companies overreaching with infringement cases. It's covered on both sides.
This is how trademarks work, there's no use getting mad because a company is protecting its legal trademark.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43408701]Today I learned large companies are required by law to patent troll small businesses.[/QUOTE]
Basically this builds case law for them in case dunkin donuts starts selling frappuccinos
if they don't do this dunkin can go "um u didn't protect your brand in this situation"
Isn't there some law that allows parodies for music and stuff? I'm not an expert at law, but couldn't it apply to parodying the name of products too?
[QUOTE=Forumaster;43406201]Before everyone jumps on the "Starbucks is a Scumbag" train, the truth is that they [I]have[/I] to defend their trademark or they'll lose it.
They know this guy isn't a threat to them, he doesn't even serve coffee, but if they don't do this then they'll lose that protection and all the other big name coffee makers will be able to start using it freely.[/QUOTE]
Yeah this is pretty much it. They probably send out thousands of these letters and might don't even care if people respond, as long has they documented proof that they are upholding their trademark.
People rage at Apple, but they are doing the same thing. Especially with competitors throwing lawsuits whenever they can, they have to be super aggressive about it.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;43408225]Technically they didn't even spell it the same so what Trademark were they violating? If you can claim trademark on stuff that's just similar, well, look at what Apple and Samsung have been doing. "Oh a tap is just a non-moving swipe, so we're protected by our patent for swiping, right judge?"[/QUOTE]
Patents and trademarks are apples and oranges. Patents are protections on specific methods that produce a technology. Change the method, and a patent no longer applies, even if the end result is very similar. Trademarks exist to protect companies from having their brand identity stolen, and to protect consumers against inadvertently buying knockoffs. They serve completely different purposes and have completely different standards.
If a moron in a hurry could confuse your one-letter-off alteration with the original, then you're most likely infringing on the trademark.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43408701]Today I learned large companies are required by law to patent troll small businesses.[/QUOTE]
Trademark defense and Patent trolling are two very different things.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43410396]Patents and trademarks are apples and oranges. Patents are protections on specific methods that produce a technology. Change the method, and a patent no longer applies, even if the end result is very similar. Trademarks exist to protect companies from having their brand identity stolen, and to protect consumers against inadvertently buying knockoffs. They serve completely different purposes and have completely different standards.
[b]If an moron in a hurry could confuse your one-letter-off alteration with the original, then you're most likely infringing on the trademark.[/b][/QUOTE]
[img]http://files.g4tv.com/ImageDb3/284502_S/ea-sues-ea-electronic-arts-vs-energy-armor.jpg[/img]
this comes to mind
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.