I'm no lawyer, but aren't parodies protected under the fair use
exception to copyright law? Isn't the Charbucks name a parody?
-- Ben Alpers
Norman, OK
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
On 21 Jun 2002 at 14:04, Benjamin L. Alpers wrote: <Snip> Interesting, isn't it? I think Starbucks is claiming that a trademark is something like property, so that those "damaging" it are liable. In which case, if a parody or even the plain truth damages a trademark, you could find yourself in court. I doubt that Black Bear has the resources to take this up the appeals ladder as a free speech issue. So were's the ACLU when you really need them? Jim homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
Jim Schulman wrote: <Snip> I think it's when you yourself use the 'parody' to promote your own product and business - treating the 'parody' like your own trademark. <Snip> Hopefully they crawled back into the small cave they came out of. I'd suggest we not discuss political topics on this list. I'm sure our opinions are divergent enough to start some real battles. - al r. |
I know it is a principle thing, but what would be so bad about "Charbacks." There wouldn't enough common letters to argue, with a straight face, about trademarks. And it isn't like "char" is an inaccurate description of Starbucks coffee - what happened to imitation being the best form of flattery? -keith Benjamin L. Alpers wrote: <Snip> homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
<Snip> It doesn't matter who's right. This is America, land of the golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. The suit will be settled in favor of whoever can stay in the fight longest. For some reason I read some of the official legal filings last night (too much caffeine, couldn't sleep). It turns out that in February/March Starbucks attempted to amend their claim such that they would no longer seek to be reimbursed for actual damages - they would just seek injunctive relief, i.e. force Black Bear to stop using the name. On the surface, a reduced claim sounds good for Black Bear. So one wonders why Starbucks sought to make such an ammendment. According to Black Bear's response, the effect of that ammendment would be to alter the claim sufficiently that Black Bear's insurance would no longer cover the cost of litigating. In fact, Starbucks' filing specifically refers to Black Bear's insurance situation, which I thought was strange until I read Black Bear's response. Since Black Bear is a small business (<$200K in annual revenues) and cannot afford to litigate without insurance coverage, game over, Starbucks wins. BTW, Black Bear claims to have offered to stop using the name if Starbucks would simply reimburse them for all the legal expenses they've incurred to date. Starbucks offered a few thousand dollars, far short of Black Bear's actual expenses. Given how much Starbucks is spending to gather "evidence" and litigate, this claim seems odd. I wonder how true it is. Ted Simpson encouraged us to "Eschew Evil". In general I think evil is in the eye of the beholder, and I usually bend over backwards to see both (all) sides. But trying to win a trademark dispute by trying to remove the resources necessary to make a case does seem kind of evil. Sigh. --JB homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
At 12:04 PM 21/06/2002, you wrote: <Snip> If I did a comedy article on CoffeeGeek about $tarbucks, and I called it Charbucks, or Harbucks, or Charbux or whater then proceeded to completely take the mickey out of them and rip them to shreds, chances are they couldn't do a thing. They'd probably issue a cease and desist letter, but they'd have little legal room to stand on. However, if CoffeeGeek was in the business of selling coffee, and we had a Charbucks blend, even with a tongue in cheek description of how it is put in lava pools until it glows red, etc etc. That's no longer parody per se. It's using comedy at the expense of a competitor to sell a competing product. That's my read on it. I don't like any Corporate Heavy Handed Lawyer Type (tm) trust me, but the fact is, if you're selling product, you can't slander or libel your competition. Mark homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
At 12:48 PM 21/06/2002, you wrote: <Snip> I love Ted (platonically! platonically!) but I'm still not with him on this issue that Harbucks is entirely evil. I still recommend the shop as a place to go buy equipment, and if you must shop at Barbucks, well demand only fair trade or direct relationship coffees. Corpbucks, love em or not, has raised the bar in N. America as to what quality coffee is about. They don't have quality coffee by our standards, but by Folgers (a true evil empire) standards they do. They introduced "espresso" into the lexicon of more Americans than any other sole entity. In some ways, Blahbucks is very much responsible for you, me, and everyone else who loves espresso having such a wide range of selection from some really star vendors online today, as well as in walk in locations. Look at the machine availability for the home market 15 years ago, then 7 years ago (before the Net took off)... huge jump. Bigger jump because (I believe) the Net made even more aware, but Starbies started the rush. For that, I have to thank them, and while I won't cut them much slack when they play Evil Corporation, I do cut them some. Mark homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 03:10, Mark Prince wrote: <Snip> I won't drink Starbucks anymore, unless my only other choice is random brown stuff from large, steel vat that was probably made last year, but it was Starbucks that got me started on the journey away from Folgers. I found their web site, bought some, and started on a research binge that hasn't ended yet. Back then, there was no locally roasted coffee in Detroit or Ann Arbor that I was aware of. There were no Starbucks stores, either. There were a few places where you could get bad espresso, and a number of places where you could get good Arabic coffee, if you knew where they were. Being a librarian, I started reading. This led to Peet's, then to small artisinal roasters who would ship and, eventually, to my first coffee roaster and greens from Tom. This took about 3 to 4 years. Heck, I even wrote a 150 card Hypercard stack on coffee in grad school. I'd predict that Starbucks and others like them, will end up redirecting a small stream of folks into home roasting. Most will stick with their mocha carmel double skinny lattes, but a few will get hooked. Those few who want more, or like doing research or are control freaks (or all 3, like me) will end up here, hacking hardware, raving about their favourite beans and arguing about grinder design. So, while I don't like Starbucks coffee anymore and don't like some of their business decisions, they did wean me from coffee in a can. Call them the training wheels for coffee lovers . Be well, Lissa P.S. I lost any sympathy for Black Bear when their web site, for no reason at all, strongly suggested I use Internet Explorer. On the scale of evil Seattle companies, Starbucks barely ranks. -- The greatest respect we can have for law and order is to question and challenge the people who are enforcing it. Lenny Bruce homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |
On Saturday, June 22, 2002, at 09:20 AM, Lissa wrote: <Snip> These are often put on by the web page designer and has nothing to do with the character of the people at the company. I'd go more by the content of their page. By the way, what did the Hypercard stack on coffee do? Jim Gundlach roasting over pecan wood fires in La Place, Alabama homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast |