3 ms·

You're speaking about the "likelihood of confusion" standard for trademark infringement, I presume. If a company employee admitted to a fact that was damaging

by jarrett 13y ago

You're speaking about the "likelihood of confusion" standard for trademark infringement, I presume. If a company employee admitted to a fact that was damaging to the company's case, then that could be a real problem. The spokesperson's judgment of the "obvious[ness]" is just an opinion, though, rather than a factual admission. The courts aren't likely to take that opinion as gospel. In other words, that statement won't short-circuit the court's normal process of evaluating the evidence and determining whether infringement has occurred. Given that, who would win? I don't know. I'm just saying that the spokesperson's statement doesn't automatically scuttle whatever case Starbucks might have. Also worth nothing: Another possible claim would be trademark dilution, which, unlike infringement, doesn't require likely consumer confusion.

delinka 13y ago
Or, maybe it's "obviously" not a Starbucks because the owners of Dumb Starbucks Coffee already contacted Starbucks and worked things out and keeping mum on the topic is part of the agreement until the punchline is delivered some time in the future. That said, if this were the case, you'd think the PR response would be even less information-- silence, or "we're looking into this" and leave it.
chilldream 13y ago
Also, reading "obvious" as "obvious to the general public" rather than "obvious to the person I'm speaking to right now: a journalist specifically asking for comment because they already believe it's not a Starbucks" and expecting that interpretation to hold up anywhere that matters is the kind of thing you only see in Internet lawyering.
gonzo 13y ago
"Doesn't require likyhood of confusion." But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. And not so much trademark as trade dress. Knew the lawyer who argued the case for Taco Cabana in front of SCOTUS.
- jarrett 13y ago
  > But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But dilution and tarnishment can occur in the same class. From 15 USC § 1125 (c) (1): "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.? > And not so much trademark as trade dress. Yes, both trademark and trade dress could come into play here. Trademarks come in because the name "Starbucks" and the logo were used (and possibly in relation to other marks, depending on the facts). Trade dress usually refers to more nebulous attributes that software people would call "look and feel." It's relevant to this case because the overall design aesthetics of Dumb Starbucks mimics that of Starbucks.

by jarrett 13y ago

delinka 13y ago

Or, maybe it's "obviously" not a Starbucks because the owners of Dumb Starbucks Coffee already contacted Starbucks and worked things out and keeping mum on the topic is part of the agreement until the punchline is delivered some time in the future. That said, if this were the case, you'd think the PR response would be even less information-- silence, or "we're looking into this" and leave it.

chilldream 13y ago

Also, reading "obvious" as "obvious to the general public" rather than "obvious to the person I'm speaking to right now: a journalist specifically asking for comment because they already believe it's not a Starbucks" and expecting that interpretation to hold up anywhere that matters is the kind of thing you only see in Internet lawyering.

gonzo 13y ago

"Doesn't require likyhood of confusion." But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. And not so much trademark as trade dress. Knew the lawyer who argued the case for Taco Cabana in front of SCOTUS.

jarrett 13y ago
> But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But dilution and tarnishment can occur in the same class. From 15 USC § 1125 (c) (1): "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.? > And not so much trademark as trade dress. Yes, both trademark and trade dress could come into play here. Trademarks come in because the name "Starbucks" and the logo were used (and possibly in relation to other marks, depending on the facts). Trade dress usually refers to more nebulous attributes that software people would call "look and feel." It's relevant to this case because the overall design aesthetics of Dumb Starbucks mimics that of Starbucks.