Starbucks sends cease-and-desist notice to Starbarks Dog Daycare

Andrea McCarthy-Grzybek says she never thought naming her dog daycare center Starbarks would be a problem.

Really? She apparently is unaware of Starbucks' history of going after other businesses that get cute with its name.

A Starbucks spokesman says "we have a legal obligation to protect our intellectual property . . . in order to retain our exclusive rights to it" and that's why it wants Starbarks to come up with a new name, logo and website.

The doggie daycare owner hates to do that.

“I love the name. Everyone loves it. It’s clever. It’s not like we sell coffee or anything they do.”

Still, she'll no doubt be forced to change it.

* Starbucks nibbles at heels of Starbarks doggie daycare

Comments

[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".