In a Texas courtroom on Monday, Starbucks called to the stand a marketing professor who testified that when 150-member groups of consumers were asked in an Internet survey whether they thought a beer called Star Bock or Starbock was associated with another company, 48 percent said Star Bock made them think of Starbucks and 58 percent linked Starbock to Starbucks. (Houston Chronicle)
> Read the Galveston Daily News account of Monday's testimony
June 07, 2005
Yeah, I'm still trying to get my money back from my purchase of a rolax watch..good luck star bock..
Posted by: zwxphtt | June 08, 2005 at 09:11 AM
I'm going to put my money on Starbucks for this one. Any takers?
Posted by: Austin K. | June 08, 2005 at 11:17 AM
Austin,
As much as I don't want to admit it, I think starbucks will take this one if for no other reason than they have more money to throw at their lawyers. I don't necessarily believe the researcher that SBUX called to the stand because he had a relatively small sample size. It would be interesting to increase the sample size to be more representative of the population as a whole and see if his numbers held.
The one thing I think the Star Bock guy has going for him is the fact that I believe (but don't quote me on this...) he has held the alcoholic beverage trademark for Star Bock beer longer than SBUX has held it for their coffee flavored liqueur. I wonder if SBUX would be satisfied if he just changed his logo?
Posted by: thinksdifferent | June 08, 2005 at 12:09 PM
Also, the guy had a really good point when he said that starbucks can't trademark everything after the word star
Posted by: thinksdifferent | June 08, 2005 at 12:56 PM
They'll go after anyone who uses STAR followed by a B, though.
>>> starbucks can't trademark everything after the word star
Posted by: STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster | June 08, 2005 at 01:19 PM
I hope Starbucks loses this case. They are being such bullies and they should just stop. Let this poor guy sell his beer. Its not like it will affect Starbucks at all.
We'll just build 50 stores around his bar and rape his neighboorhood of character as an act of retaliation.
Posted by: | June 08, 2005 at 05:03 PM
I can see how someone might get confused over Starbock vs. Starbucks, but I live in Pennsylvania so what are the odds that I'm going to go to Texas and buy either beer or coffee? The point is, sure the names might be confusing, but what is the damage to either party?
Posted by: an american | June 09, 2005 at 11:44 AM
Originally sent comment to site master; he said to post it...I wasn't sure where, so here goes:
I have a question for baristas and junkies alike:
Why is there so much "drink disrespect" out there
for drinks other than "drip?" I realize that some
drinks are "frou-frou," harder to make, some are
highly customized, etc., but in what way is that a bad thing?
For the baristas: I realize you might not like the extra time/effort it takes to make a "frou-frou" drink, but hey...it's on the menu, you are paid (sometimes tipped!) and trained to make it, and if the customer is nice about ordering it, why do you have a problem with making it? Isn't the point of Starbucks' extensive menu and "legendary service" to get people exactly what they want?
For the junkies: So you like plain coffee. Good for you! I happen to enjoy vanilla lattes. That doesn't mean I have "bad taste." That means I have DIFFERENT taste than you. So get over yourself, already. I don't tell you what to drink, please don't tell me what to drink.
I'm truly not trying to have "attitude" here, just trying to understand WHY people have "a problem with it" when someone orders anything other than drip/plain stuff. To each his own, right? And if you put in your order with a smile, what's the problem? I've perceived this "drink disrespect" in person AND on these boards. Just trying to understand!
Grande, iced, non-fat, vanilla latte. Mmmm!
Andrea in D.C.
Posted by: AndreaB | June 09, 2005 at 12:21 PM
Personally I don't mind the customized drinks (From a business perspective I know that those customized drinks increase customer loyalty so I hand out those "Make it your drink" booklets left right and center and watch the 15% comps).
The only thing that bugs me is when people deviate from what is a latte or such. Like adding whip to a caramel macchiato!
Posted by: Partner 1139XXX | June 09, 2005 at 04:11 PM
But WHY does that bother you, Partner 1139XXX?
If it's in your job description to provide "legendary service," and a customer wants to personalize his or her drink with that whip, why does that bother you? That's how that customer likes that drink. Do you like ketchup and mustard on your fries? Do you like Tobasco with your eggs? People like what they like... if it's part of Starbucks' mission to make customers 100% happy, why does it bother you to do so?
Me, I like my coffee black. But that's me. Nothing wrong with liking a machiatto with whip, as long as the person ordering it is respectful and kind to their friendly neighborhood barista.
Posted by: Jimmy Jaymes | June 09, 2005 at 04:21 PM
You are right and I do ring up and serve them their with whip caramel macchiato, but deep down inside, far away from the customers eyes, I get the feeling that by putting the whip on they don't really understand the essence of the drink. How the espresso and caramel is supposed to sit suspended in the foam to provide that sharp yet sweet goodness...that's all really...to me it just demonstrates how people don't really look past the first layer of life. I don't just mean this with Starbucks but it's to be found with everything in life, the majority of the population just simply doesn't care. Apathy will reign supreme.
Posted by: Partner 1139XXX | June 10, 2005 at 02:33 AM
Guys,
Can someone explain to me since when a Corporation can grant itself a licence to steal?!
This comes from http://www.starbucks.com/customer/disclosure_form.pdf
paragraph 3:
"I UNDERSTAND THAT STARBUCKS HAS NO OBLIGATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO USE MY IDEA AND THAT NO COMPENSATIO IS DUE TO ME FOR ANY INADVERTENT OR INTENTIONAL USE OF THAT IDEA"...no compensation for INTENTIONAL use!!!!
Imagine that you grant yourself to take the cookies for free from that boy scout who shows at your door. Showing something means, for them, that they can take it for free!!!...This is called "STEALING" Mr. Starbucks! How more arrogant can a Company be?!
Posted by: Ken Yore | June 10, 2005 at 07:49 PM
Pssst ... Andrea --- that would be
Iced Grande Non-Fat Vanilla Latte
;)
Posted by: | June 11, 2005 at 12:59 PM
If you add sugar to your drink, you are a child.
/just trying to get everyone's goose on a monday!
Posted by: Tony | June 13, 2005 at 12:17 PM
Actually that would be an "iced grande vanilla non-fat latte"...
Posted by: | June 14, 2005 at 08:30 AM
That clause in most if not ALL contracts. What you do on company time belongs TO THE COMPANY. If you don't like it, don't give them your idea; you are under no obligation to do so. If you do, then you agree to the clause. It's not stealing. You are their employee. Part of what they're paying you for is your brains.
Posted by: | June 22, 2005 at 12:14 PM