A Perfectly Cromulent Blog

Reason #4,328 to boycott Starbuck's

Not only is their overpriced coffee about as tasty as a styofoam cup of warm tobacco spit, but they're litigious assholes:

GALVESTON — 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.
...
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.

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.

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.”

Now, I'm no big city lawyer, so I have no idea how much water Egbert's argument is going to hold. Even so, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Starbuck's is making so much hay out of this. Surely the bad publicity they'll reap from stomping Rex Bell's guts out in court is something they'd want to avoid.

Then again, this isn't first time Starbuck's has pulled out all the legal stops to go after a comparatively defenseless target. Just ask Kieron Dwyer (and see the image they sued him over here).

Chuck has written some about the Starbock situation. So have Scott and Michael, who makes possibly the best point there is to be made about the whole imbroglio:

In any case, how can you take a company seriously that’s named after Dirk “Face” Benedict?

I always rooted for the Cylons, personally.