coffee™
Could someone really trademark the word 'coffee'? That sounds ridiculous. It's a generic term. It's a common word used throughout the world and especially in the coffee industry. It would be like trademarking the word 'screwdriver.' Surely a government organization wouldn't allow someone to claim the word 'coffee' as exclusively their own... Would they?
Well, it seems that there are big organizations that think they can finagle the law enough to get a trademark on common industry terms, as associated with their company name. In our instance, Starbucks is claiming they have exclusive rights to the word 'doubleshot' because they were granted a trademark on the term 'Starbucks Doubleshot' for a canned drink sold in convenience stores. They claim that I am infringing on that trademark, and that I should destroy everything I own with the word 'doubleshot' on it, and abandon my website.
Obviously this is ridiculous. In the coffee industry, the word 'doubleshot' (two shots of espresso) is not fanciful. It is descriptive. To claim the word 'doubleshot' as exclusively Starbucks' is the same as claiming the word 'coffee' because they have a trademark for 'Starbucks Coffee Company.'
Unless we find a way to raise the ire of the general public and industry professionals, Starbucks can not only claim common industry terms as their own, but they can also litigate small companies out of business. This is not a small matter, and the more noise we can make, the better chance Starbucks will back down (I hope). Dispensing Pressure...
posted by Brian at 12:23 PM
10 Comments:
I totally trademarked the word "orange." Y'all bitches owe me!
I contacted Starbucks and let them know that they need to layoff their obnoxious behavior.
Why doesn't starbucks just trademark the letters "S", "t", "a", "r", "b", "u", "c", "k", and lowercase "s"?
Maybe if Starbucks actually had decent coffee they wouldn't have to be rough elbowing the rest of the world out of the coffee business.
If you were local I'd definately drop in to try some. Guess I'll just stick to my non-over-priced, never burned tasting and always delicious Dunkin Donut's Coffee.
La vie la révolution de café!
McDonalds sues anyone using Mac or Mc anything out of business, too. There was a McDonuts in Oklahoma City many years ago - established before or about the same time as McDonalds. It was a fairly old, family owned little donut shop. McDonalds sued them to death. As if McDonalds even sold donuts! I guess Starbucks' figures the Mc's get away with it...
So, when do you suppose they will get around to sueing SciFi Channel for Battlestar Galactica?
Spare a few bullets for the idiots that granted the trademark/patent to begin with.
Of course, Starbucks, and other bullying big companies hould keep their hounds, ehm , lawyers on a shorter leash. Like McDonald sued everyone having a business with a Mc (even if that company existed before the fastfoodchain) or Georgio Armani who once got the third generation bagmakers Armani family shop to cease to use the armani name and armani.it, big companies do think they can sue anyone over such trivialities. Perhaps Apple should start sueing everyone who uses ixxxx?
drinking starbucks is like going without a shower for a month, licking your own armpit and then drinking a gallon of burnt milk.
their trade practices are almost as stomach-churning as their beverages.
I'm thinking that y'all are right. My lawyer advised me to change my name anyway because I can't trademark DoubleShot either. But I don't need to trademark anything. Everyone in the world can call their business Doubleshot if they want; you'll still know when you've tasted my coffee. I have quality coffee; that's my trademark. It's true, Starbucks is in the business of owning words and trying to create a feeling, a lifestyle; not trying to serve good coffee.
And yes, the attorney at the trademark office should be ashamed of herself for accepting that b.s.
Do not take out extended warranty on any electric/cameras or stereo equipment bought from Currys/Dixons as the are a total RIP-OFF BE WARNED, BEWARE
Mike
It would seem to me that they don't have much to stand on considering the generic definition of doubleshot - there is a "genericity" clause within trademark law that states as such. "A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer." When I think of the term doubleshot the first thing that comes to mind is certainly not Starbucks and nor is it DoubleShot Coffee Company. I think for the public doubleshot is a generic term that denotes a certain type of brewed coffee as well as the quantity of that certain type of brewed coffee.
Post a Comment
<< Home