Doubleshot Expert
Lawyers are just people. And some of my favorite people happen to be lawyers. Heck, it's the most common occupation of my customer base. But every once in a while, I talk to a lawyer that really makes me want to vomit on his (or her) face. You know the ones- they passed the bar exam and are really cool. See, they drive a BMW. Can't you see how cool and rich they are? And the bar exam... man, that must be hard. So many brilliant lawyers out there. Way smarter than us normal, common folk. We the dumb people. Need lawyers to help us understand.
So this fool walks in to the coffeeshop and asks me the status on the Starbucks issue. I tell him. I'm probably not supposed to put this out on the internet, but I'm going to tell you too.
They stopped sending me letters and have resorted to calling. They said that they're not anti- small business. They understand my position and they think I have some good points. They are just "policing" their trademark. So they changed their mind. They want to settle this thing in a reasonable way, so all they're asking now is that I put a space between Double and Shot, and they'll pay to have everything changed. Hmm. Let me think about that. What does that mean?
Now back to the fool lawyer. I told him that's unacceptable. They're obviously backing down and asking me to do something arbitrary because they know I'm right, yet they still want it to look like they were right. He said something about "Sam Bucks." Said that judges don't like to make new law. They just like to look at the precedent and make decisions based on that. He told me not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "I told you how to win this case a long time ago, but you didn't listen to me." And then he told me, "You're a bright guy, and make good coffee, but you're not an expert in everything. You don't know law."
Let me say this. Of all the people in the entire world, I know more about THIS case and the law involved than anyone. I know the history. I know the laws involved. I know how they relate to the coffee industry specifically. I know how they relate to the descriptive term "DOUBLESHOT." I know why I'm right.
See, Mr. Generic Lawyer, back when Starbucks first applied for this trademark, the USPTO told them they needed a disclaimer stating "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use 'DOUBLESHOT' apart from the mark as shown." The controversy here is that the USPTO withdrew that requirement after receiving a letter from Starbucks that is full of misstatements and prevarication. In one section of this letter, Starbucks' lawyers state that they already own the trademark "DOUBLE SHOT" for "use in connection with closely related goods." (I'm not sure chocolate and candy are "closely related goods," but I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.) They go on to say that the space between "double" and "shot" is an "immaterial difference" between the two marks.
Seems like, once again, some lawyers didn't do their homework.
Some lawyers piss me off.
Hey generic lawyer, don't try to make me look stupid; you're not that smart. Nice pink shirt.
So this fool walks in to the coffeeshop and asks me the status on the Starbucks issue. I tell him. I'm probably not supposed to put this out on the internet, but I'm going to tell you too.
They stopped sending me letters and have resorted to calling. They said that they're not anti- small business. They understand my position and they think I have some good points. They are just "policing" their trademark. So they changed their mind. They want to settle this thing in a reasonable way, so all they're asking now is that I put a space between Double and Shot, and they'll pay to have everything changed. Hmm. Let me think about that. What does that mean?
Now back to the fool lawyer. I told him that's unacceptable. They're obviously backing down and asking me to do something arbitrary because they know I'm right, yet they still want it to look like they were right. He said something about "Sam Bucks." Said that judges don't like to make new law. They just like to look at the precedent and make decisions based on that. He told me not to look a gift horse in the mouth. "I told you how to win this case a long time ago, but you didn't listen to me." And then he told me, "You're a bright guy, and make good coffee, but you're not an expert in everything. You don't know law."
Let me say this. Of all the people in the entire world, I know more about THIS case and the law involved than anyone. I know the history. I know the laws involved. I know how they relate to the coffee industry specifically. I know how they relate to the descriptive term "DOUBLESHOT." I know why I'm right.
See, Mr. Generic Lawyer, back when Starbucks first applied for this trademark, the USPTO told them they needed a disclaimer stating "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use 'DOUBLESHOT' apart from the mark as shown." The controversy here is that the USPTO withdrew that requirement after receiving a letter from Starbucks that is full of misstatements and prevarication. In one section of this letter, Starbucks' lawyers state that they already own the trademark "DOUBLE SHOT" for "use in connection with closely related goods." (I'm not sure chocolate and candy are "closely related goods," but I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.) They go on to say that the space between "double" and "shot" is an "immaterial difference" between the two marks.
Seems like, once again, some lawyers didn't do their homework.
Some lawyers piss me off.
Hey generic lawyer, don't try to make me look stupid; you're not that smart. Nice pink shirt.


