J. Dan Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 A local micro brew got a cease and desist letter from Starbucks for calling one of their beers Frappicino (spelled incorrectly, as noted in the reply letter referenced below...he says "we intended it to be identical, lucky for us we're bad spelers"). The owner sent them a response that is absolutely hilarious and has gotten local attention. CLONK A few highlights... the starbucks letter starts out talking about its world famous trademarks, the brewery letter states we've sold at least 38 drinks in Cottlevile, MO. He repeatedly refers to "Mr. Bucks". He says "We never thought that our beer drinking customers would think that the alcoholic beverage coming out of the tap was actually coffee from one of the many, many, many stores located a few blocks away." Starbucks had referenced a web site where the beer was listed. The brewer says they check and that they had sold 3 beers through that site, so to be sure not to cause any damage to Starbucks, they're turning over all the profits from those beers, and they included a check for $6. It's a must-read. Dan Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Dan Posted December 31, 2013 Author Share Posted December 31, 2013 Actually, on a more serious note....obviously they could get a cease and desist court order on anything that is trademarked, but to get any kind of monetary settlement, would they have to prove damages? Is there such a thing as a punitive settlement in these types of cases? Realistically, isn't this a huge waste of money by Starbucks? Dan Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brenner13 Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 The lawyer probably just needed to meet a quota for Starbucks' trademark interests before the end of the year? Sounds like a brew worthy of a road trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonysounds Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 The lawfirm is likely on retainer. It's stupid, but here's the thing: if you don't show a history of protecting your trademark, when your trademark is really actually THREATENED, that lack of diligence will work against you. (Hi Xerox!) Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB Dave Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Yep. CLONK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Paxton Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'm not a huge fan of Starbucks, but I have to side with them in this case. Ripping off someone else's material is poor form. The fact that they're a huge corporation and you're just a folksy little aww-shucks neighborhood bar doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marzzz Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I'm not a huge fan of Starbucks, but I have to side with them in this case. Ripping off someone else's material is poor form. The fact that they're a huge corporation and you're just a folksy little aww-shucks neighborhood bar doesn't change that. Exactly. But in the meantime this aw-shucks neighborhood bar is getting national exposure. They'll change the name and welcome all of the attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synthoid Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 So... what's for breakfast? http://mouthbysouthwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/beerdonuts2.jpg When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.