For Peet’s Sake

7 Responses to “For Peet’s Sake”

1. McGehee Says:
   April 9th, 2006 at 10:02 am

   Starbucks does coffee? I never knew that.

2. Sigivald Says:
   April 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pm

   Starbucks thinks, correctly, that it has a trademark on a very specific product name in its industry. Not “coffee”. Not even “a double shot of espresso”.

   But “doubleshot”, one word. A real no-shit trademark (by any normal definition of the word, and especially the legal one) that they’ve been using for years to identify a coffee product. (They registered “Starbucks Doubleshot”, but I suspect very strongly they have customer-confusion grounds for just Doubleshot.)

   And now this guy names his coffee joint the same thing and complains, even though he knew damn well their product existed, that they don’t like him doing so?

   “A double shot of espresso” is probably too generic to trademark (though I think legally there’s no actual prohibition, but who’d bother to use that as a trademark?) … but “doubleshot” – one word – isn’t commonly used.

   I don’t see that he has a case, and he should have known better. Fortunately for him, Starbucks hasn’t actually filed any suit.

3. Xrlq Says:
   April 10th, 2006 at 11:00 pm

   Sigivald, you have got to be kidding. If you really think writing a generic compound as one word vs. two can create a valid trademark where none existed, try operating a hamburger shop called Burgerking or a coffee shop called Star Bucks and see how far you get.

4. Sigivald Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

   Xrlq: Was “Double Shot” an existing trademark, like “Burger King”? No.

   It was a generic term. And contra “Doubleshotcoffee.com” guy’s assertion (which seems to be based on no legal evidence), that doesn’t mean it can’t be a trademark, if it’s successfully used as one.

   Which Starbucks quite effectively seems to have done.

   My point was that “a double shot” being a generic term does not make “doubleshot” an impossible trademark. Not that doubleshot would be okay because it’s one word if “double shot” was itself a trademark.

   The “customer confusion” test, which is evidently central to trademark law, would seem to bear this out. Certainl “Burgerking” would cause customer confusion.

   And Starbucks has a plausible claim that a doubleshotcoffee.com and doubleshot coffee house are confusingly like their been-used-for-years trademark, Starbucks Doubleshot. (Especially when one counts that their website is “doubleshot.com”, not “starbucksdoubleshot.com”, and the can itself is most prominently “doubleshot”, not “Starbucks Doubleshot”.)

   That was my point. Not that you could evade a real, existing trademark by changing two words into one.

5. Xrlq Says:
   April 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pm

   Xrlq: Was “Double Shot” an existing trademark, like “Burger King”? No.

   I don’t see how that affects your theory. Either the simple presence or absence of a space between syllables can spell the difference between a valid trademark and a generic term, or it cannot. If it can, the game should work both ways.

   It was a generic term.

   Bingo. That’s game, set and match, right there.

   And contra “Doubleshotcoffee.com” guy’s assertion (which seems to be based on no legal evidence), that doesn’t mean it can’t be a trademark, if it’s successfully used as one.

   Where did you get that from? “Genericide” is a well-established doctrine of trademark law. If a term is generic, it can’t be registered as a trademark. Even terms that were once valid trademarks lose their trademark protection if they become generic, which is why owners of some of the more commonly used trademarks, such as Kleenex or Xerox, go out of their way to discourage generic use of their marks. “Aspirin” was once a valid, registered trademark in this country. It isn’t anymore, nor can it be (though it is in Germany).

   To the extent you acknowledge that “double shot” is a generic phrase, it is Starbucks, not “doubleshot.com guy,” who has no case.

6. Phelps Says:
   April 13th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

   Also, I don’t see how there can be a credible claim of market confusion. Starbucks Doubleshot(tm) is a prepackaged CANNED retail beverage. You can’t order a Starbucks Doubleshot(tm) from a barrista in a Starbucks outlet. (I’m not even sure if they carry them in thier little retail case.) You buy it in grocery stores and convenience store type places, where they sell prepackaged beverages.

   There is a HUGE difference between that and a coffee shop where drinks are prepared on demand and coffee beans are sold.

7. jim Says:
   April 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am

   The word doubleshot has been around befor Starbucks.This gives any bar that existed befor Starbucks the right to sue,if Starbucks tries to clam copyrights to the word in any shape or fashion.It just seem that Starbucks is just afraid of a little compitetion,(a small one shop business)that should not impact its business that much if at all.What are they truly scared of?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail