k wrote:

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.

Hm. Normally, this is the kind of thing where I'd be 100% for the independent owner, and I still hate starbucks, but they're not too far off the mark here. She clearly intended her logo to be a jibe at starbucks. If it was only the name, then this would be bullshit, but she poked the bees nest. That being said, I certainly don't think it's *confusing* and if that is the metric (ostensibly) then I still think the ruling is wrong.

Anyway, it kind of sucks for her, but she didn't do herself any favors, for sure.

The logo's really don't look much alike at all...
They both have circles... and both are pretty different. Sambuck's has some green...
The only thing that might be slightly too close is the missing space between sam and buck's. And the presence of stars. There's some pink blue thing which could either be a coffee cup or a hot tub. There's no spread eagle mermaid. The font is very different. Starbucks is not possessive like Sambuck's.

Plus the name "starbucks" is taken from Moby-Dick, which should be in the public domain anyway.

terratogen wrote:

The logo's really don't look much alike at all...
They both have circles... and both are pretty different. Sambuck's has some green...
The only thing that might be slightly too close is the missing space between sam and buck's. And the presence of stars. There's some pink blue thing which could either be a coffee cup or a hot tub. There's no spread eagle mermaid. The font is very different. Starbucks is not possessive like Sambuck's.

Plus the name "starbucks" is taken from Moby-Dick, which should be in the public domain anyway.

That last is probably arguable, but, not by me.

i imagine that the trademark in this case is "starbucks", moreso than the logo at least. again, if the metric was "You're trying to poke fun at the competitor." then no problem, she's in the wrong. But the metric is that the infringing mark causes confusion in the marketplace. Personally, I have a dim view of a society in which people are considered to be so retarded that "starbucks" and "sambucks" can't be identified as distinct entities. As such, I don't think starbucks should get this one, but by my metric, a lot of these cases wouldn't have been decided as they were. I guess what I'm saying is that I hold people to a slightly higher standard than the law does, and expect them not to be fucking stupid. For all my cynicism and disdain, I can't seem to shake this deep seated belief that humans are actually capable of more. The tension between that hope and the inanity of the real world is a constant in my life.