Liberty's Blog

Starbucks vs Starbock

Kuff, notes in a starbock update that A Perfectly Cromulent Blog had something to say about Starbuck's trademark suit. Apparently Tim isn't impressed with Starbucks coffee either.

Not only is their overpriced coffee about as tasty as a styofoam cup of warm tobacco spit, but they're litigious assholes:
...
Depends on how bad the beer is. I suppose it's possible that a patron at the Old Quarter Acoustic Cafe might take a drink from a skunked batch, wrinkle his nose is disgust and say, "Damn, that taste's worse than Starbuck's house blend!" Otherwise, it's a stupid case.

I have to agree with him, but even if their coffee was drinkable, I wouldn't patronize them because of their heavyhanded treatment of the little bar here on the island.

They are refering to the suit described here.

The beer tap will continue to flow at a Galveston bar involved in a legal battle with coffee giant Starbucks Corp.With no resolution late Tuesday following an eight-hour mediation hearing in Houston between Starbucks’ attorneys and the creator of Starbock — the draught beer at the center of the dispute — the two sides will likely not meet again until they go to trial in 2005.“Nothing was settled, but we’re pleased with the fact that we get to continue to use the name Starbock and can sell the beer as usual,” said John Egbert, the Houston attorney representing Galveston businessman Rex Bell, owner of the Old Quarter Acoustic Café.Judge Samuel Kent has booked a June 6, 2005, date for the trademark case to be heard in U.S. District Court. Kent had ordered the mediation hearing at Starbucks’ request.The case, which pits the $4 billion Seattle-based corporation against the Galveston entrepreneur, revolves around Starbucks claims that the name of Bell’s beer infringes on its well-known brand. In March, Egbert filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Kent’s court — in essence asking Starbucks to prove its case in a trial setting.Leading trademark lawyers have said the case centers on one key premise — whether someone asking for a mug of Starbock beer on tap at Bell’s bar was thinking she was drinking something associated with Starbucks.In late July, an independent Houston television crew filmed a spoof “taste test” at Bell’s bar involving beer and coffee. The director said he will attempt to sell the video skit to a late-night network program.Separately, Egbert said Wednesday that he is set to file a notice of opposition with the U.S. Trademark Office in Washington, D.C., to counter several Starbucks applications filed in May 2003 for “distilled spirits and liqueurs” that were recently approved. Starbucks plans to sell alcohol under its brand name in restaurants, bars and liquor stores, but not at its familiar coffee shop retail outlets. The liqueur will be made under a private-label agreement with Jim Beam Brands Co.Starbucks has used those trademarks as evidence in its filings against Bell. Egbert believes he has a strong case to counter those trademarks because they were filed several months after Bell’s initial Starbock trademark application, which was approved by the Trademark Office.“(Starbucks) has said that Bell’s use of the Starbock name would cause confusion with their trademarks even though our mark was filed before theirs and we have priority,” said Egbert. “If that’s the case, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We can also say that Starbucks is causing confusion in the marketplace.”A Starbucks spokesman has recently said the company will no longer comment on the case while it is before the court. In prior interviews, a spokesman for the publicly traded company said Starbucks would vigorously oppose Bell’s alleged trademark infringement.

posted by Liberty @ 12:32 PM