Posted on 11/15/2013 12:39:24 PM PST by EveningStar
Starbucks Corp has failed to persuade a federal appeals court to stop a small, family-owned New Hampshire roaster from selling coffee known as "Charbucks."
Ruling in a case that began in 2001, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Black Bear Micro Roastery and its owner, Wolfe's Borough Coffee Inc., may keep selling "Charbucks Blend," "Mister Charbucks" and "Mr. Charbucks" coffee.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Doesn’t sound any better tasting the Starbucks
Starbucks is charred, so I can see the mistake.
I’m surprised the big company didn’t get their way. Disney Inc. will stop at nothing to protect all their little Mickey’s and images thereof. McDonalds, also aggressively protective. Maybe any such protection only last for X number of years, like a patent.
Still waiting for the Herman Melville case to wind it’s way through the courts.
Yup. Even when I go back to Vancouver, there’s an SB at every damn corner like here in L.A.
Here in Russia, the Burberry brand is (of course) very prestigious.
There are a lot of companies that play on the name:
1. Cheeseberry’s - cafe featuring cheesecake.
2. Shashlikberry’s - a cafe selling shashlik (Russian BBQ)
3. Borschberry’s - a cafe selling traditional Russian food.
4. Rakberry’s -boiled crawfish takeout (rak = crawfish in Russian)
I’m thinking of opening a coffee shop named Starstrucks.
“Maybe any such protection only last for X number of years, like a patent.”
After such time, I can steal your farm, your factory, your company?
I’m surprised the big company didn’t get their way. Disney Inc. will stop at nothing to protect all their little Mickey’s and images thereof. McDonalds, also aggressively protective. Maybe any such protection only last for X number of years, like a patent.
They should have taken lessons from Apple, no does or rather did intimidation like Steve Jobs.
“I’m thinking of opening a coffee shop named Starstrucks.”
I;m thinking of opening a coffee shop named “He Brew.”
I was thinking of opening a Deli named Cheese’s Kryst.
Why anyone would take as a brand name the nickname given Starbucks on the basis of their always overroasting their coffee is beyond me.
Still, after the absurd trademark decision won by North Face against the parody clothing line “South Butt” (rendered by a judge who can’t tell north from south, right from left (the two curved regions making a stylized butt were on the right, while the three curved regions of the North Face logo are on the left), or a face from a butt), it’s good to see parody branding being upheld.
LOL Jehovah Java. The great Awakener.
Don't know if it's any good ...
Well, Starbucks stole their name from a Herman Melville character, so I don’t think have any grounds.
You’re conflating real property with intellectual property. The same rules don’t, and logically can’t, apply to both.
I don’t advocate someone ‘lifting’ the business model from another business, no. I’m just trying to understand why this Charbuck’s company got away with it, and other imitators don’t without getting threats by a company lawyer.
Might be another case of Cronyism. You know, like the Canadian company that (mis)designed the ObamaCare website, which just so happens to be owned by one of Michelle’s old school chums. What a coincidence!
Since Starbucks tastes like burned s*** anyway, Charbucks is a more accurate name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.