Starbucks new Trademark battle
Starbucks the giant isn't afraid to take on the little guy in its zealous defence of its trade mark. They won a case against Sambucks.ASTORIA, Ore., Dec. 7, 2005 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- A judge has told Sam Buck that she can't call her coffee shop Sambuck's. The judge ruled the name violated the trademark of coffee giant Starbucks. (NASDAQ:SBUX)
But there is a silver lining for the small business owner. Buck won't have to pay Starbucks' legal fees, even though it could under the ruling by U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty.
A Starbucks representative said the company never planned to ask Buck to cover its legal costs.
"It's not about David and Goliath," said May Kulthol, manager of media relations for Starbucks Coffee. "We try to deal with these types of situations amicably and to come to a good conclusion for both parties. The defendant is not required to pay legal fees nor did we seek damages from her."
It might not be over yet though, The court wouldn't buy into the fact that Sam Buck,didn't give up her maiden name when she got married.
Her attorney said the grounds for appeal are strong in several areas. Although the court ruled Buck was a competitor to Starbucks, and that she watered down the company's trademark, Oregon's anti-dilution law "normally doesn't apply between competing companies," Kurt Rylander said.
But the main question, one that "underpins the entire case," involves Buck's name, according to Rylander.
"Sambuck's" was an amalgamation of the business owner's maiden name, Samantha Buck, and she contends "Sam Buck" is how she's known to most people in Astoria.
But Starbucks' lawsuit was filed against Samantha Lundberg, her married name.
The court ruled that Buck abandoned her maiden name by getting married, but Rylander disagrees.
"Women don't abandon their maiden names," he said. "They can still use them when they get married."
He presented two witnesses who testified that Sam Buck is known to community members as just that, but their accounts
were ignored in the court's opinion, he said, providing possible grounds for an appeal.
This looks to me lke the decision is based on shakey grounds.
posted by Liberty @ 11:54 AM
3 Comments:
By interesting coincidence, my brother is a cop out in Astoria. He confirms that the lady in question is generally known by the name of her establishment.
I guess you have no right to your own name when a big corporation wants it.
I have it on good authority that Liberty's own spouse uses her maiden name too! Business people don't even know her married surname and it will always stay that way - but if anyone wants to BUY it, email here!
There is a computer store in North Carolina called "Nissan Computers" owned by a man named Uzi Nissan. Nissan Motor Corporation sued and ultimately won its case against him, and now he cannot use the domain name nissan.com, which he rightfully registered in the wee days of the web and before nissan motor even knew what the web was. The other poster is completely right, people don't even have the right to their own name anymore if a big corporation wants to make money off of it. To offer this woman $500 was an insult, since it would cost tens of thousands to actually change the name. The building sign, artwork on the windows and walls, stationery, cups, the whole deal - costs a fortune to throw away. Starbucks KNEW she would turn down the offer. They wanted an excuse to sue. I am DONE with starbucks, and I wrote them a letter to that effect. I also sent a memo to all 5000+ employees of my company that we will no longer reimburse any starbucks purchases on expense reports. The only way these huge corporations will listen is if you vote with your wallet.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home >>