Starbucks stops Sam Buck from calling her coffee shop "Sambuck's"

A federal judge has ruled that Sam Buck must change the name of her Astoria, Oregon coffee shop and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Starbucks to cover its legal fees following a legal battle that lasted three and a half years. Buck opened her shop in October 2000. In March 2002, Starbucks sent her a cease-and-desist letter that called her company’s name confusing and misleading. (Daily Astorian)

Comments

[Adam in Racine, WI]

A lot of people will read this story, and their first reaction will be "That poor woman, why is that big mean corporation picking on her?". The reality here is that Sam Buck was dumb to try and fight this without at least consulting someone who is familiar with trademark law first.

Starbucks did not go after this woman because they want to put small businesses out of business. They followed through with the lawsuit because failure to do so grants future violators the right to bastardize the Starbucks name in a similar fashion without any legal consequence.

Sam Buck could've saved herself, and her employees, a lot of trouble by spending an hour at the local library doing some research. She should've taken the $500 and changed the name to Sam's Coffee Shop, instead she decided to be the hero and got her butt kicked. No sympathy here.

[Austin K.]

Agreed, Adam. Do people really think they can get away with this sort of thing when these huge corporations have virtually unlimited funding and lawyers at their disposal?

In the recent case of that guy who made Starbock beer, at least his product wasn't coffee. But a coffee shop called Sambucks? Damn. That's pretty dumb.

No sympathy from me either.

[Drinker]

This reminds me of that hamburger chain in the movie "Coming to America" -- McDowell's.

[jason]

Do people really think they can get away with this sort of thing when these huge corporations have virtually unlimited funding and lawyers at their disposal?

I think you've tangled two different ideas: You're right, corporations have virtually unlimited funding and lawyers to fight this kind of stuff. That doesn't make their arguments correct, as you implied by writing that Sam Buck is trying to "get away with" something. Might means victory, but it doesn't mean right.

Sam Buck is her name. A person should have a right to name something after themselves. I recall a case in which a person whose last name is shared with a major company -- McDonald? Ford? -- registered a website with the last name before the company did, and the company sued. I don't remember the outcome, but I believe the company was wrong. How can a company's name be legally more important than a person's family name?

I also disagree with Starbucks' claim that Sambuck's was confusing and misleading. Starbucks is a nationally known name; it's familiar enough that people can differentiate between it and a name that's somewhat similar. By universalizing the appearance of their stores, they've also created a familiar image that would be hard to confuse with whatever Sambuck's happened to have. A judge should have recognized that the possibility for confusion is low to non-existant, as is the potential loss of revenue to Starbucks because of it.

You're right, Sam Bucks should have known she'd lose. But that doesn't mean she was in the wrong.

[MsuSpartan]

What did she really lose? She is going to have to change the cups and menus and buy a new sign.

As long as she has a new name, she almost certainly will begin a new corporation and start the new business from scratch.

Starbucks won "hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees from Sam Bucks, and of course the entity called Sam Bucks doesn't exist anymore.

The start up will begin debt free, with an existing customer base and as much free publicity as a town the size of Astoria can provide.

Looks like you won this one Samantha Buck, and more power to you.

[e]

The bottom line is that Starbucks has to defend their name or else other people can continue to chip away at its equity. I think a letter offering her $500 to change the name was a nice gesture.

There is no way you can say that choosing Sambuck's, although it is the combination of her name, was not a parody of Starbucks. That in of itself is proof that she was using the Starbucks name.

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster]

>>>offering her $500 to change the name was a nice gesture.

That wouldn't even cover the cost of getting a new sign.

[e]

>>>offering her $500 to change the name was a nice gesture.

>>>That wouldn't even cover the cost of getting a new sign.

The point is they didn't owe her anything. She clearly used the name Starbucks (it was a parody), they asked her to stop (they even offered her $500 when they didn't need to), they were compelled to file suit to protect their trademark to ensure other people didn't dilute the name and legally it was an easy case to decide.

[MsuSpartan]

>>>offering her $500 to change the name was a nice gesture.

>>That wouldn't even cover the cost of getting a new sign.

If she responded $500 wasn't enough and countered with a demand for say $1,000 or maybe even $2,000, there is a good chance *$$ would have agreed to it.

[tom]

Gosh another reason not to patronize corporate coffee. I need to find Sam's new shop the next time I visit Astoria.

[Jason]

Tom..

Best comment so far..

[-m]

I can't believe that some of you are even questioning the Sam's business ethics. This is a clear case of parody...and it really isn't that clever.
Tom, Jason, WebMaster...what size would you like your Che Guevara t-shirts?

[cornfrost]

Last week the WSJ used STAR BUCKS as a flashline for a piece on the finances of some movie actor.

[Jeff]

I'm astounded at what Starbucks thinks picking on a little known local gal and her business in a corner tip of the state of Oregon. But, to me, Sam Bucks could've been anything, shirts, pants, bags, books, coffee, juice, milk, soft drink, etc.

Now, just tell me and everyone else, Starbucks, if my last name were Starbucks, would you'd still sue me? Probably not!

Now take a recent examble of Tillamook for an exmable, there was a big flipper flap a few months back that the chesse factory there, wanted all to stop using TILLAMOOK as the name of the city and so forth in the long run, since the cheese factory was complaining about that it was interfering with its business there. Give me a break!

...or was that Bandon, Jason, Tom?

Truth is Sam Bucks' is going to be shelling out thousands of dollars to get things changed and getting a new name and changes on her business license as well.

I agree with points made above, that a little research could've done some wonders and saving some money.

But a $500 offer might not get very much with a business name change and so forth, maybe somewhere in the ballpark of $40-$50 thousand is more like it, rather than going to court and getting into a long fight, but rather settling it between L.A. Law types out of court.

[European]

Well and this you call DEMOCRACY nad FREEDOM in America?????

USA is so ludicrous....... I'm so happy to live in normal Europe

:))

[javajockey]

C'mon. Sam Buck was her MAIDEN name; obviously chosen for its similarity to SBUX. She chose to fight instead of back down, so she had to know what she was getting into (or her lawyer was an idiot).
Sbux was entirely within its right to do what it did, especially since she owned a COFFEE SHOP.
Oh, and European: The day Europe is normal is the day pigs fly.

[mike]

Remember when the Dolby sound system company wanted Thomas Dolby to change HIS name? There has to be some sense of proportion here. Of course she was foolish to take on such a big company, but that doesn't mean $tarbuck$ is right. They suck. There are many examples of such gray areas of copyright infringement around the world.

[Brian]

I think Herman Melville should come back from the grave and sue Starbucks for using his character's name.

[Agree with Brian]

Brian, couldn't agree more. Isn't it ironic that a company that took their name from a well known piece of western literature would get upset that others are taking the name back? I could care less about the whole legal aspect of this case, it just bothers me that people (or corporations) can assume ownership over parts of our collective culture.

[Domoni]

How come Starbuck's didn't sue Battlestar Galactica?

[-m]

I find it funny that all of you Sam Buck supporters have no arguement except for, STARBUCKS IS SO MEAN!
Starbucks has every right in the world to protect their brand.
Your entire life view is based on success = evil....the bigger the badder. This tired philosophy is so played out.

[javajockey]

Amen, -M. It's a business thing; she's selling coffee with a similar name. If you let it go, next thing you know there is Sambux Coffee, Stanbucks Coffee, Starbacks Coffee, etc. everywhere, trying to ride the coattails of a successful company. It's just a good business practice, but then, of course, all the "OMG, companies are only good and just until they hit it big, and then they MUST BE EVIL!!!!!" people start crawling out of the woodwork. Sheesh.

[-m]

Its a knee-jerk reaction for people with no common sense.

[Commando]

If this BS is allowed to go on, soon Starbucks will sue small businesses for also selling coffee. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. I don't believe they should have won based on only name similarity. If you walked into her shop and it was a mirror of the classical Starbucks then yes I would agree with the corporation. We are a sue happy society. This is just stupid.

[-m]

Starbucks...Sambucks.
I really don't see how you guys can be so incredibly stupid. Mrs. Buckshould have known better. She was trying to be cute and gimmicky and, now, she has to pay for it.
The little guy isn't always the good guy. And, sometimes the big corporation can be ethical and good. This time, the little guy wasn't just trying to get by. Mrs. Buck was screwing around with the name and image of another business.
If Sam Buck had stolen the name of another small cafe would it be any less wrong?

[dave]

US people are so dumb. They can't even distinguish Sambucks from Starbucks. Neither are the judges. Judges can't read. Give me a break. No sympathy for US judges from me.

[Dani]

While I see why they had to try to protect thier copyright, I will say that the $500 they offered was a bulls**t token that they knew wouldn't cover any of the costs of changing a name. I'm assuming that, as they have lawyers on retainer, it was just as easy for them to take Sam Buck to court as it was to pay the token fee.

Mostly, I think the judge was wrong to rule that anyone should be denied the use of their own name, maiden or otherwise.

If the name were truly a parody, which is to say, a comic imitation, it would be protected under the first ammendment as we've seen with Jimmy Swaggert vs Hustler magazine and more recently, Fox News vs AL Franken. I don't think the name was a parody though, so much as it was an attempt to use a recognizable image for the purpose of profit.

There is some humor in that the name Starbucks was not an original to begin with and it may even be questionable whether they had the right to trademark it to begin with.

Names and works that are part of the public domain, such as Moby Dick and it's characters, are usually protected from exclusive use. The word Mercurym for example is used to name everything from cars, florists, insurance agencies, computer systems, lounges and anything in between.

Even if you don't agree that the name Sambucks is covered by the First Ammenment right to free speech, as a parody, there should still be problem with anyone claiming exclusive rights to a name that has already been established as a part of the public domain.

Please forgive me for my knee jerk reaction, I'm sure my point only boils down to "Starbucks bad."

[Dani For Prez]

Right on Dani!!!
They didn't create the name, so how can they own it? But I agree that most people will label you and I as "anti-corporate reactionaries".

Let's all work together to keep the public domain public.

[Dani]

LOL Dani for Prez... we'd all better run for cover. I talk so much, my acceptance speech alone woudl take us into the next election.

Thanks though.

I actually kind of like Starbucks, though I wish they hadn't set the trend toward $4.00 coffees. But I sincerely respect the fact that they managed it.

It's like the American Dream, all jacked up on caffiene.

[corianderstem]

But isn't the whole "how can Starbucks own the name because it's from Moby Dick" argument a moot point? If using a name from literature were a problem, they wouldn't have been allowed to trademark it, right?

I don't know much about trademark laws, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere along the line, a court must have allowed them to trademark the name Starbucks, so raising that argument now means nothing.

[Justin]

While it is an inconvience for Sam Buck's to have to change her company's name she knew she had it comming when Starbucks asked her to change the name. I am sick and tired of hearing people hate Starbucks based on a successful bussiness plan. Get over it. She was stupid to try to defend herself and as was the lawyer to even take the case on. I work at Target and rumour has it that target attempted to trademark the color red. Now that is outrageous.

[Dani again]

Illegal and unconstitutional decisions are made in court all the time, that's why we have higher courts to appeal decisions made in lower courts. Just because a trademark was granted doesn't mean the decision is final or the original judge was correct.

That said, I'm not a judge, so my opinion is even more questionable.

My point was that disagreeing with the decision made doesn't make one inherintly stupid as some have said, nor does it make a contradictory opinion a simple knee jerk reaction motivated by jealousy.

Of course, my arguements would probably carry more weight of intelligence if I checked for typos once in a while.

[-m]

The KNEE-JERK reaction I mentioned is when certain individuals automatically cry foul whenever a corporation wins out over the little guy.
In this case I think it is pretty obvious that the judge ruled properly. Mrs. Buck was making a parody of the Starbucks brand and image. Would she have named her place Sambucks if there wasn't a Starbucks? I think not.

It isn't your typos that cause your arguements to carry little weight.

[European]

Javajockey - Europe is surely a trillion times more normal than the US...

but what to expect from the Cartoonland of the Mickey Mouse???

Only such idiocies... :))

I love to read some 'news' from: http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html where most of such interesting 'happenings' are from your Cartoonland - ha ha!

Maybe you're not able to understand it but I'm really happy to live in Europe...!!!

European...you're French, aren't you? Only someone from France could be that arrogant and stupid.

[European]

You're of course an example of a "dumb american"* - only such a person could be so stupid to use such arguments.

*forgive me all NORMAL Americans that do still exist as I believe, even after 4 years of bushism.

AND - read it well because I'll not repeat it twice :)) I'm NOT French - it's a sense of inferiority that makes you think about anything that is bad as French???

Quite misterious....

Maybe it's the first time you can read it - but not only French don't see you as the centre of the universe - I'd say the majority of the nations don't regard you as gods... ha ha...

What does Bush have to do with trademark infringement?

[deusx]

Well he is certainly the poster boy for corporatism gone bad. But I don't think he even LIKES starbucks...dunno. And all things bad don't have to be French, they can be Belgian too. Grrrr..damn Belgians!

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster]

Please, let's knock off the personal attacks and get back to Starbucks vs. Sam Bucks.

[Austin K.]

1.) "Moby Dick" is in the public domain, meaning you can quote it, reference it, take characters from it, make a crappy tv adaption of it, etc. without paying money to any holders, simply because no one holds licence to it. Absolute moot point.

2.) The fact that her name is "Sam Buck" doesn't protect her in the least. If my last name was "Lincoln" (or even a variant of that spelling) and I wanted to produce and market automobiles under that name, it wouldn't take long before I would get a letter from Ford's lawyers. I would be dilluting a known trademark.

Sorry, but justice was served here.

[-m]

I know a lot of really great French people, and I've even met some cool Belgians. Your nationatlity isn't what makes your smart, hip, cool whatever, Every country has its dicks.

You would think that Starbucks would have better things to do than go around suing people for using a similiar name. Are they afraid of a little competition? Grow up Starbucks...you're 34 years old!

[-m]

They didn't sue anyone.

[E]

They are not afraid of competition; they are only protecting their name. They have to protect it or they can lose it (ex. bandaid, kleenex, xerox, etc). Offering any money to Sam Buck who was clearly trying to capitalize off of the Starbucks name (albeit tongue-in-cheek) was a decent gesture. They didn't have to do it. I'm sure the last thing they want to do is prosecute some woman in Oregon but they don't have any choice. You have to vigorously protect your name or you will lose it.

And it doesn't matter if it is her name. The fact that she is in the business of selling coffee and chose a name similar to another coffee house is plainly wrong.

[Dani]

Webmaster, your right when you say that public domain is for anyone's use and no one can hold license to it. That's why I say it's debatable whether Starbucks would win if the decision is appealed. It could yet be decided that they had no right to hold license to it to begin with, and Sam Buck would have the right to use it if she wished. In theory, one simply can't decide that something which has been public domain shall now be become their own to hold exclusive rights over.

The second half of your argument is absolutely right, and the precedent has been set long ago. One Kellogg brother suing another to stop him from using his own name to sell cereal comes to mind.

I must say though, my opinion for or against the matter is not indicative of intelligence. There are lots of points in which the law is disagreed upon by quite intelligent people. Prohibition, abortion, mandatory seatbelt laws are just a few examples of laws that have been hotly contested by intelligent people.

Trying to marginalize groups of people for disagreeing with you, or worse yet, because of where you think they live, says far more about the attacker than the attacked. A dissenting opinion is hardly indicative of intelligence, and it would be foolish to assume so. I'll happily challenge M on it at the next MENSA meeting, though they encourage us not to patronize the custodians.

(Note M, I'm attacking a person who attacked me, not a broad group of strangers I have no knowledge of...that's how you do it. Attacking strangers who haven't said a word to you, in defense of a corporation, no less, makes you seem, it has to be said, off your meds.)

[Evrim]

Wow, so many Starbucks corporate mouth pieces here.

Starbucks trying to come up with an image of respomnsible/friendly coffee store but they are just bulliles trying to drive all coffee shops out of business.

What did she lose? A lot of money for paying Starbucks lawyers expenses. Why does she have to change her name? Why does it change anything it is her maiden name?

It is sad when individuals become so brain washed they start becoming their mouth pieces.

Another example of big corporate busienss getting their way in this "money buys you justice" society. I try to avoid Starbucks as much as I can, now I will definitely not buy anything.

[Evrim]

Another thing - just because US law system says Starbucks is right, it does not mean it is right in the general sense. Most of the laws are put there by lawmakers who take thousands of dollars from companies (bribes if you ask me).

One final point is that this is the first level of legal system - she can appeal and win eventually. I also find the tone of starbucks supporters pretty mean, it must be the coffee.

[Dani]

Evrim, don't hate the player babe, hate the game.

It's necessary for Starbucks to try to protect their name. If they don't it can become genericized and a part of common use in the English language. When that happens, all the hard work and money they put into building a recognizable image is all for naught.

Did you know that Dry Ice is actually a trademark name for frozen carbon dioxide? Few people do, and because they don't, the people who made Dry Ice famous have no public recognition to show for it. From a money stand point, they spent the time and money to make the product famous, but because they didn't actively fight to keep it out of common usage, they have no selling edge of name recognition to promote their product.

The ironic part is that it happens less often with a company name and more often with regard to the product. Kimberly Clark is the company that makes Kleenex, but the product name is what has become part of common use language, not the company name.

While it's busy protecting the name of it's company, Starbucks is more likely to be challenged on the use of the trademark Frappuccino because it relates to a distinctly identifiable product that was fairly unknown before they made it popular. I've seen many espresso stands that, while leaving the name Starbucks alone, call thier frozen, blended coffees Frappuccino.

They're likely to have the same problems with the drinks that the Rollerblades company has had with all in-line skates.

Man, I've spent way to much time on this subject... I need to quite drinking all that caffiene.

[martinis00]

If I'm not mistaken, Sam Buck opened her coffee shop BEFORE $tarbuck$ came to town. NOBODY in the entie State could mistake Sam Buck's for $tarbuck$....another outrageous court decision.

[e]

You can't just run to a different town and profit off to another town and profit from someone else's name.