I just hooked up the roaster, and am waiting for the old girl to heat up. The sound of the powerburner stifles the rhythmic purring of the airflow through the drum and the dampened exhaust pipes. It's dank and rainy outside. A good day for coffee.
I think it's funny how espresso changes. The variables associated with pulling espresso (and even more so with making a latte or cappuccino) are many and elusive. Bean blend (and all that goes with an agricultural product), roast, age, grind fineness, tamp pressure and evenness, water temperature (and the temp of the portafilter), water pressure, extraction time, water volume, not to mention how the elevation and humidity effect espresso, and very importantly, the instincts of the barista. These aren't independent variables; they all work together (or against each other, depending).
You might think that you should get the same drink from a place every time you go there, but you will not. Espresso is very touchy. I used to think the goal was consistency. Now I know better. The goal is quality. That's elusive enough. I know it won't be the same every time. It won't be the same twice in a row by the same barista. Having it different every time is part of the joys of coffee. I love the variability. I love the challenge of making a coffee that tastes so damn good that I can barely stand it.
Like in cupping this week, the Colombia Nariño Reserva del Patron was incredibly good. Better than it should be.
And today, the challenge between me and two of my worker bees to make a better americano. The best americano. The most outrageously good americano there is.
Coffee is amazing. My baby's purring at me; I gotta go.

Ok, here it is. As promised, I have uploaded the response I sent to the lawyers representing Starbucks. Posted here is page one of three (1 of 3). You can find the rest on my flickr page.
Summary: Kiss my ass.

So I'm sitting here talking to Joe Kelly on the morning talk radio show for KRMG AM740, and Josh is banging the knock box, and the customers are standing in line- staring at me, wondering why I'm on the phone instead of serving them, and this large man walks in wearing sunglasses (which is discouraged at DSCC while ordering). But he's big and I've never seen him before. I get off the phone. He asks me if I'm Brian. I ask him if he's the KRMG Quick Response Team. He says, "No, I'm the regional hitman for Starbucks." So he's quick-witted, and I let the sunglasses slide.
I sent the response letter to Fulbright & Jaworski on Monday. They are the cease and desist lawyers for Starbucks. My lawyer is funny. He made me wonder for a while if he really understood what I wanted. He asked a lot of questions. I spent all week doing research. He wrote a beautiful letter that will live on in the DoubleShot annals forever.
I went from lauging to concern to pissed off, back to laughing, and through the cycle over and over again. It's disconcerting. The one thing I have to fall back on is I AM RIGHT. If I weren't sure of that, this decision would be much harder.
The ball is rolling. I have taken an offensive position. I will not back down. But now, more than ever, I need public awareness. I need bloggers to revive this story and newspapers to pick it up and national publicity in all forms of media. Because if there is one thing Starbucks cares about, it's bad P.R. I'll post the letter tomorrow. You'll get a kick out of it.

So at first, the USPTO applied a disclaimer to the trademark application: "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use 'DOUBLESHOT' apart from the mark as shown."
But Starbucks' lawyers countered with a letter. Here are some excerpts:
"the Patent and Trademark Office has granted Registration No. 2,044,320, on the Primary Register, for Applicant's mark DOUBLE SHOT in connection with 'chocolate and candy' in Class 30." . . . "The registered mark DOUBLE SHOT is virtually the same as the term in question here, with an immaterial difference of a space between the words 'double' and 'shot'" . . . "the goods recited in the '320 Registration and this application are very similar, being for food and beverages respectively."
"Applicant coined the term 'DOUBLESHOT' by combining the words 'double' and 'shot' in order to convey an impression of greater strength or intensity of flavoring in the recited goods.". . . "The word 'double' is capable of conveying a variety of meanings."
(This is my favorite part.)
"The Examining Attorney may have assumed that 'double' refers to twice of something related to the recited goods, be it volume, a particular ingredient, a flavoring, or some other aspect or component of the goods. In fact, however, no such aspect or component is reflected on the face of the mark, other than the vague or suggestive use of the word 'shot.' For 'DOUBLESHOT' to be descriptive of some aspect or component of the recited goods, therefore, the recited goods would have to have twice the volume of a 'single shot' of some unidentified ingredient. However, no particular ingredient or flavoring is identified in the mark, and no standard or commonly accepted measurement is identified for a 'single shot' of that theoretical ingredient or flavoring. (In fact, the goods to be marketed under the proposed mark will be small in size, dispelling any notion that twice the volume of anything is being offered.)"
I didn't make that up.
The worst part is, the USPTO attorney accepted the argument.
More to come...

Termometro
Originally uploaded by doubleshotcoffee.

Seems like the temperature is rising. Last night, a few lucky patrons got to see my passion explode onto a soapbox of righteous indignation (twice). The thing that really gets my juices flowing is the cowardice of people; the willingness to accept injustice because they perceive the cost of standing for what is right to be too high. That's not my game.
People take the truth and say it's an opinion, and there is a case to be argued on both sides of every issue. And they take their opinion and state it as absolute truth. I don't get it.
They say, "you are right, but..." And that's where we run into problems. There is no "but..." I'm either right or I'm wrong. And this talk that a citizen of the United States of America can't walk into a court room and defend himself and be taken seriously unless he has a lawyer is ludicrous. Is that really the state of our justice system? Because if that's the case, I may have a lot bigger battle than just Starbucks. As a US citizen, I would expect the arbitrators of our laws to listen and issue justice no matter who is standing in front of him: lawyer, plumber, preacher... coffeemaker.

As I said last night, the lawyers of the world may have been taught moral relativism- the non-existence of truth and fact (except when it suits them), but that's not the way this world operates. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. I stand on what's right. Tell me I'm wrong if you want, but don't tell me I'm right but I'll lose because they have more money than me. I DON'T CARE.
I have a lot of difficult decisions before me. Monday is the day I send my reply to the initial letter from Starbucks. Wish me well.

I can almost feel the coffee inside the roasting drum. It's getting hot; there is some anxiety that I won't let them out in time and they'll be injured or destroyed; all they want is to get out and cool down. And then... whoosh, relief. Spilling into the cooling bin. Taking care to pick out the defects. Pulling them off the pile so they'll cool faster. The faster, the better.

It's attention to detail. It's becoming so familiar with the coffee that I actually feel empathy for them. I don't see "coffee," I see individual beans- seeds of a sweet coffee cherry. I enjoy roasting.

This guy walked in here (pretty big fella) and ordered a "frozen mocha." My barista and I tried not to look at one another, but I'm sure he had the same smirk I did. I hear the blender. I hear the whip cream. I hear the fella say, "Why did you put pink sprinkles on my drink?" Hmm, let me think about that one, big guy.

There is a girl out there who seems to drink the cappuccino as if it were Yemen Mocca Sanani; as if it were a quadrium Trappist ale; as if each one were her last. I like that.

There are a lot of people blogging about our situation with Starbucks. Do a Google search for 'doubleshot coffee' and see a few pages of related results. I can't keep track of them all, but if you see one you think I might be interested in, or want to contact me for any other reason...
Brian@DoubleShotCoffee.com

Thanks!

My friend Brad is home on leave from an Army base in Germany. He will accompany his unit back to Iraq in June. Props to Brad for his courage and his service to the United States of America. We will soon resume selling the "g.i. joe" blend and sending coffee and support items to our troops in combat. Thanks Brad!

I have been busy trying to run this coffeehouse as usual, get caught up on paperwork, deal with the Starbucks issue, and race on weekends. I don't sleep much.

Time is drawing short and some critical decisions need to be made. Many people have recommended that I just submit to Starbucks and change the name of my business. They have too much money and could squeeze me out of business, right? Maybe I'm an idealist, but in my mind this isn't just about a little café in Tulsa Oklahoma. This is about what is right and wrong. This is about a corporation trying to live above the rules, and lay claim to words that have been in the coffee industry for a century. I'm not the kind of guy to lay down and let the schoolyard bully push me around.
The response to the attorneys will happen this week. Should I press the issue and take a chance of being sued? If I am sued, where will I get the money for a lawyer? Will someone trustworthy of this case work pro bono? If I cannot find a lawyer, can I stand up for myself in court? I know I am right; and I know that I can clearly state the case. If I must have a lawyer for a lawsuit and do not have one, should I play it safe and negotiate backward? There is much to consider.

If Starbucks files a lawsuit against me, they will surely try to get an injuction to close my doors until the matter has been settled. They know that would run me out of business. Unless I can find another way to make money in the meantime. Operate under a different company name? Sell coffee out the back door? Refuse to close the doors and risk contempt of court and jail-time?

Sure, Starbucks case is ridiculous. I am right. You know it, I know it, and I'm sure they know it. But that doesn't mean they won't try to hurt me. These are some of the things I must consider...

When it comes down to it, I will fight until I have nothing more to give. This is the United States of America.

I'll keep this blog updated more regularly.

1 DoubleShot 2:3-5, 18-26

Now the Corporations gathered their lawyers for battle; they were gathered in Seattle, which belongs to Starbucks®, and encamped between a stream of bad coffee and a row of pre-packaged pastries, in Caffe Verona®. The DoubleShotites gathered and encamped in the valley of Tulsa, and formed ranks against the Lawyers. The Lawyers stood on the mountain of Bureaucracy on the one side, and DoubleShot Coffee Company stood on the truth on the other side, with a valley between them.

And there came out from the camp of the Lawyers a champion named Howard Schultz the CEO, whose height was six gallon coffee™ cans and a pint. He had a Starbucks® ballcap on his head, and he was smocked with a green apron; the color of the apron was the hue of money and the weight of the apron was heavy on Howard's mind. He had khaki pants on his legs and a 20-ounce cup of hot, flavored milk in his hand. The front of his cup was like a mermaid's breast, and (ironically) on the back read the quote "The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for. (Maureen Dowd)" (from Starbucks® "The Way I See It"™ campaign); and his lawyer went before him.

He stood and shouted to the ranks of DoubleShot, "Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not from Starbucks®, and are you not folowers of DoubleShot Coffee Company? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and defeat me, then we will be your servants; but if I prevail against him and defeat him, then you shall be our servants and serve us." And Howard said, "Today I defy the ranks of DoubleShot! Give me a man, that we may fight together."

When all of DoubleShot heard these words of the CEO, they were dismayed and greatly afraid. (Well, slightly nervous anyway.)

The CEO came on and drew near to Brian, with his lawyer in front of him. When the CEO looked and saw Brian, he disdained him, for he was only a youth, studly and handsome in appearance. The CEO said to Brian, "Am I a mom & pop coffeeshop, that you come to me with trademark law?" And the CEO cursed Brian by his gods. The CEO said to Brian, "Come to me, and I will give your DoubleShot coffee™ to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the field."

But Brian said to the CEO, "You come to me with lies and lawyers and cans of soda; but I come to you in the name of DoubleShot Coffee Company, LLC, the defender of words for the coffee™ industry, whom you have defied. This very day public opinion will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and show you justice; and I will give the annulled trademarks of Starbucks® this very day to the birds of the air and to the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a defender at DoubleShot, and that all this assembly may know that words do not belong to corporations; for doubleshot and coffee and espresso and macchiato are industry terms and the coffee industry will give you into our hand."

When the CEO drew nearer to meet Brian, Brian ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the CEO. Brian put his hand in his bag, took out Howard Schultz's own book, opened it, and showed the CEO his own references to the descriptive word 'doubleshot'; and he went to the USPTO to file a complaint, and he went to the coffee industry, which stood behind Brian, and to The People who drink coffee around the world. The words sank into his head, and he fell face down on the ground. So Brian prevailed over Starbucks® with the truth and a voice, striking down the CEO and defeating him; there was no soda in Brian's hand, but a doubleshot of espresso (no sugar).

This is my prophesy, which cannot come to pass without the armies of the coffee industry and the people who drink coffee and stand up for right rallying behind me. This is bigger than the local café. Stay with me at http://www.DoubleShotCoffee.com/blog

Listen for more podcast news at http://www.DoubleShotCoffee.com/aacafe


And remember, today is $2 Tuesday. Receive a $2 discount when you purchase a pound of fresh-roasted coffee™ in the store, any time today.

Order DoubleShot coffee™ online at https://bizweb4.tulsaconnect.com/doubleshotcoffee/


Brian

Well, no lawsuit has been filed. A little bit misleading in the header. But this morning, DoubleShot Coffee Company was featured on the local CBS affiliate, KOTV channel 6. Watch it streaming here (at least for today): http://www.kotv.com/main/home/eclips.asp?clipid=2370#

I also did an interview last Friday on FOX23 news and a radio interview on AM740 KRMG.

Stay tuned!

The coffee™ shirts arrived today! Comfy, high-quality white cotton tshirts commemorating "THE GREAT DOUBLESHOT REVOLUTION." Get one soon; I doubt they'll last long. Available in the store or on this blog.
*handsome model not included

Every Wednesday I conduct a cupping with three lucky patrons. This week we cupped India Monsooned Malabar, Kenya Peaberry, and Costa Rica La Magnolia (Tres Rios). It's an interesting learning experience for those involved, and I always come away with a new understanding of our coffees. My favorite part of today's cupping was listening to April describe the picture in her head as she tasted the La Magnolia: a fat, squatty gnome with flowing ribbons from his hat and pastel colors all around. Interesting.
We came to a consensus that it doesn't have to be our favorite, as long as it is unique, high quality, distinctive, memorable...
Email me if you want to join us for a cupping session some Wednesday evening.
Brian@DoubleShotCoffee.com

It's election day. It's also $2 Tuesday.
I can't think of anything that would look better than an "I Voted" sticker next to a DoubleShot icon sticker. So go vote.
Then come to DSCC. Buy a pound of fresh-roasted DoubleShot Coffee and receive a $2 discount anytime Tuesday. Every Tuesday.

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...