« Starbucks claims the pumpkin spice 'crisis' is over. Is that correct? | Main | Pumpkin Spice Latte ice cream hits store shelves on November 1 »

October 09, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Redacted

Does anyone else see the oxymoron here with "intellectual property" here?

Come on Starbucks Lawyers, really earn your keep with something substantive, maybe some pro bono work for help small USA businesses rather than becoming a burden on one.

Anyone who cannot tell what is real Starbucks deserves what they get. Buyer beware (caveat emptor in legal speak).

Herman

Redacted - you do realize that all that software you used to post your comment exists because it is protected by intellectual property laws?

Redacted

@Herman - I use open source software.

BobJD

Redacted ++
Herman - yeah nothing would be created without IP law.
Come on Starbucks, trademark law is geared to protect consumers from confusion. Is Starbucks telling us something about their coffee if they think that one might confuse a doggy daycare with their product?

Barista Ben

Part of having a copyright is being forced to protect that copyright, or you risk losing it. Here is an idea, how about come up with a clever idea that isn't ripping off someone else's work. Even their logo is the same.

ob

Melville agrees!

Herman

Redacted - don't bet your first born that every flipping line of code between your finger tips and the web page are open source.

BobJD

Barista Ben - It's trademark, not copyright. Have you looked at Starbucks logo? They aren't even using the logo that sort of looks like that one. Again, an important underlying purpose of trademark is so that the consumer does not get confused. "Starbarks Coffee Company" would be confusing. Starbarks Doggy Daycare? Really? Two companies that have completely different businesses can have the same name. How many "A1" or "AAA" companies can you find in a phone book? There's no confusion here.

Dan

Barista Ben, So you're saying Starbucks should change it's name because it's ripping off Herman Helville's work? ;-)

Jotaylor

Ben is totally correct. End of story.

SirMark

Starbucks went to the dogs years ago. How did anyone not notice?

Broyling Water

Triple A didn't protect their copyright over the years, therefore they lost it, hence the fact that so many companies can use elements of it. As a former wearer of the Green Apron that is now working on his JD, I can tell you, that Starbucks is firmly in their rights to aggressively protect their copyright.

The companies involved would rather not have to do this nonsense, but they know that if they don't act this way every single time they find out about a potential copyright issue, they stand a chance of losing control of their property.

wasatec

Hey trademark....

But starbucks takes it to the extreme.

These are the same lawyers that tried to trademark "Christmas".

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Search Site

Ads (2)