Earlier this month a new coffee shop opened in Los Angeles called Dumb Starbucks. The outer appearance of the shop is an exact replica of a Starbucks coffee shop except the word “Dumb” appears in front of Starbucks. Inside, everything is also an exact replica of a Starbucks with the word “dumb” inserted in front. The cups have the Dumb Starbucks logo and the menu items are dumb as well. Canadian comic Nathan Felder is the owner of the shop and announced plans to open a second location in New York. Naturally, Starbucks is not amused and has pledged to protect its trademark. They have stated that they are “evaluating next steps” and have made it clear that “they cannot use our name, which is a protected trademark.”
Dumb Starbucks has potentially infringed multiple forms of trademark protection. Starbucks is a protected word mark and using Dumb Starbucks in commerce can confuse consumers or dilute the Starbucks brand. Similarly, the logo for Starbucks is also protected but Dumb Starbucks copied it and inserted the word “dumb.” Since Dumb Starbucks also copied the colors of a Starbucks shop it may have infringed upon trade dress protection, the outside appearance of the coffee shops which help consumers identify they are Starbucks.
In the Dumb Starbucks store, a notice was posted claiming the store was protected by parody law and fair use. Chances are Starbucks and Dumb Starbucks will not head to court (litigation is expensive!) but if they do, it is hard to determine who will emerge as a winner. To be a parody, a court must find that an offending mark both invokes the original mark but also differentiates itself by communicating satire, ridicule, joking, or amusement. The more famous the original mark is, the more likely a judge may find parody. However, there is no guarantee Dumb Starbucks will be considered a parody in the court of law. Starbucks knows that litigation is lengthy, costly and not always predictable, thus they will likely negotiate with Mr. Felder before instituting a legal action, but only time will tell.
- Computer Law
- Fair Use
- First Sale Doctrine
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- Overbroad State Right-to-Repair Bills Would Violate Federal Copyright Law
- White Paper Proposes Solutions for Overhaul of Section 512
- SCOTUS Justices Lob Tough Questions at Both Sides in Prince-Photo Fair Use Fight
- The Copyright Claims Board: A Venue for Pursuing Actual or Statutory Damages Impacting Both Registered and Unregistered Works
- Practical Tips for Writing Ex Parte Appeal Briefs
- Eleventh Circuit Rules for Viacom in FLORA-BAMA Trademark Case
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, December 2: Court of Federal Claims Rules CDC Patents Breached Gilead Agreements; Eleventh Circuit Affirms Trademark Win for Viacom; and Delaware Litigation Funding Case Heats Up at CAFC
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter