Sam Buck Loses Copyright Suit to Starbucks
Cory Doctorow reports,
A woman named Sam Buck opened a coffee shop in Astoria, Oregon in 2000, two years before a Starbucks opened down the road. She named her shop Sambuck’s, and the judge in her case said that she willfully infringed on Starbucks’s trademark in so doing.
Well, sure. If a guy named Mac Donald opened a hamburger chain and named it after himself, he’d lose, too.
Buck might have a better case had she named the shop “Sam Buck’s Coffee Shop” rather than “Sambucks Coffee.” And the fact that she opened her shop before Starbucks opened one on the same block is irrelevant. Again, had her shop been in existence before Starbucks became a nationally famous chain, she might have a case.
- None Found
- Swine flu is more popular than Dodd
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
Reminds me of the movie "Coming to America" - McDonald's vs. MacDowells!
Heh, that's the exact comment I was going to leave, Mark.
And me..
Well, since this is what everyone thinks, here is the quote from the movie itself!:
Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.
Mark's quotation brings up a point... what did her shop look like? Were her signs and such similar to Starbucks? I would think that if she were trying to imitate the 'look and feel' of a Starbucks, it would have added fuel to the legal fire.
Does anyone know??
...follow the links, leelu.
Well, the logo seems different enough.
Comments are Closed












