Prbkk

Yes, Burger King, hungry jacks....whatever the name, still merchants of death and disease, flogging fat-laden, sugar overload rubbish. 1200 calories in a burger...and so heavily promoted through slick and sly gimmicks aimed at children. They must be required by law to state that their food is dangerous and will, if consumed in significant quantity, lead to a much higher likelihood of disease and premature death. Starbucks has 2 drinks on the name and shame list of the most unhealthy drinks in the USA ( mega calories, sugar equivalent to 8 scoops of full fat icecream). These companies are now under much greater scrutiny in the developed world but continue to export the misery with impunity. Marketing dangerous food to children is unethical

It may seem that way but pray tell, do you know of any multinational company that will allow someone to use a counterfeit copy of their corporate logo like that if they could help it? And it's not as if they didn't give the fella a chance to remove the logo with no penalties. This guy is just stubborn and now is going to get sued for it. I have no pity for this person. He had a chance to get out of this situation without any problem but decided to fight a battle he just can't win.

Starbucks needs to take a look at themselves. This guy is hardly stealing their market at the moment. They [ starbucks ] are actling like the playground bully.

I agree with what you're saying but it is just one store isn't it ? Why would starbucks bother with it ? If he opened up a chain then sure but this just seems like overkill to me.

You clearly don't understand the law when it comes to copyrights and trademarks.

By not vigilantly defending your ownership of these assets you weaken your position to defend them at a later date. If you wait until the infringing company has multiple locations and has been using the name for years and THEN try to assert your rights you will have a much more difficult time.

This guy KNEW what he was doing. This isn't an accident. It was a premeditated decision that he intentionally took. He is infringing on the Starbucks name and logo to operate a business that is in direct competition with Starbucks main business.

He had to know he was going to get a letter from Starbucks eventually... And if he didn't know, he is a fool.

There have been some corporate bashers making comments about big business crushing the little guy... but this cuts both ways...

Have any of you ever been to a Burger King in Aus? I didn't think so, because they are called Hungry Jacks. Why? Because a local business already had the trademark on Burger King when BK tried to enter the market in Aus. They supposedly tried to buy the name from him but he wouldn't sell, so they created a new name for the Aus market.

That's the way the game is played. (At least when you have a legal system that respects the rule of law.)

....only obliquely related to "justice", my concern relates to public health . There is a reasonable discussion emerging on the safety of the food chain but these companies flogging products that are made to be dangerous and unhealthy are unregulated in most developing countries. I would require them to post warnings on their menus , similar to those on cigarette packets, identifying the health consequences of consuming the products. The Thai health system is going to be overwhelmed by emergence of epidemics of avoidable diseases caused by the over consumption of fast food, largely American in origin.

I wish more people would boycott these evil American corporations....Denny's. Wendy's, Krispy Kreme, MacDonald''s, Burger King, KFC, Coke, Dunkin Donut etc etc. All consumed on the basis of a cultural cringe that anything American is trendy and good when the sad reality is that it is all vile, unheathy, in some ways dangerous ( 900 calories in some Starbucks drinks). Profiteering from the export of misery and a path to coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity. Then American big-pharma arrives to flog the treatments/medications at vastly inflated prices.. This is already a huge problem in China and well on the way in Thailand. At least Au Bon Pain voluntarily lists the calories by item ( but I doubt many people read it. It's sad to see Thai kids eating so much of this crap

Sure, put all the people who work for 'evil' corporations on the street. Serve them right for trying to feed their families while offending your sense of justice.

Starbucks CEO salary 2012....$117,500,000 US Corporate tax paid by the company in the UK over the past 15 years, under 10,000,000 total. something very wrong in that equation. Greed beyond belief

Owned by Unilever ( ie, the same company fined 100m Euros for running a price-fixing cartel.

name="Bluespunk" post="6950986" timestamp="1382429838"]

"Whites Only: European-owned Citra offers cash to 'whitest' students"

Coconuts deliberately trying to stir it by putting "European-owned" in their headline.

If a few people give him a review on tripadvisor, he will become one of BKK's major attractions

Well, I'd suggest a long think about that investment prospect. Funding expansion into new markets by not paying tax in existing ones is not a great strategy ,

as those chickens do eventually come home to roost....

A good story of support for the local Thai man with his fight against Starbucks

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19516864/thai-coffee-vendor-defies-starbucks/

Seems this story is going global. Oh the damage being done to Starbuck's reputation is priceless!

Lol. Yeah, sure. "Going global". ROFL. Priceless indeed! I'll bet they're practically reeling under the weight of this. Page15 news was it? Why they'll be declaring bankruptcy within the week! Right!

You know, if, on planet Bizarro, this actually were happening, closing all those stores and putting all those employees out of jobs, and cutting off that all-important tax revenue you all keep going on about, THAT would all be OK in the interests of this streetvendor who's just another scummy scofflaw?!

I think I'll go get myself another frap., and maybe a pastry, again tomorrow. You know, there wasn't an empty seat in the place today. That boycott sure seems to be good for business! Maybe I should be buying their common stock, too - I'll have to look into that. You know what they say about publicity - even bad publicity...

I wish more people would boycott these evil American corporations....Denny's. Wendy's, Krispy Kreme, MacDonald''s, Burger King, KFC, Coke, Dunkin Donut etc etc. All consumed on the basis of a cultural cringe that anything American is trendy and good when the sad reality is that it is all vile, unheathy, in some ways dangerous ( 900 calories in some Starbucks drinks). Profiteering from the export of misery and a path to coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity. Then American big-pharma arrives to flog the treatments/medications at vastly inflated prices.. This is already a huge problem in China and well on the way in Thailand. At least Au Bon Pain voluntarily lists the calories by item ( but I doubt many people read it. It's sad to see Thai kids eating so much of this crap

Just started a boycott Starbucks page on Facebook. Go to Facebook and look for: notostarbucks (one word) I hope this is ok with the admins here. Otherwise please remove alt=tongue.png width=20 height=20>

And what pray tell made you do this ??

Im no fan of starbucks but they have a right to defend their business and it equity which includes their logo/ brand

What ridiculous notion did you harbour that establishing a boycott Starbucks page would do anything constructive.

Just amazes me that you'd actually confess to doing this....

Thanks, but I'm pretty clear on the distinction . In this case there was no verdict. Indeed, Starbucks, being such a great corporate citizen, VOLUNTEERED to pay the tax. However, I think you will find that the message from govt and the public prior to that 'generosity' was unequivocal. Sorry, I'm just not fond of Gordon Gecko clones pinching money meant for public use

There was a form of boycott in the UK. Consumers don't like multi-nationals engaging in tax evasion. Market share for Costa Coffee went up 27% during the ( bi-partisan) criticism of Starbucks over its tax situation. So for every person, like you, choosing to drink more Starbucks as a protest against a crackdown on corporate greed, there were hundreds voting with their feet....and straight to Costa. I don't think it was any reflection on the coffee so much as a general distaste for those who don't want to pay their fair share.

There's only one course of appropriate action: Starbucks boycott! In fact, Starbucks protest! Stop the bullies. Who's in?

I just love that chirping sound crickets make...

(I wonder how many thousands of cups of coffee Starbucks sold while I was typing that.)
((Oops, there go another few thousand.))
I never drink coffee, but just as my personal form of protest for all the David & Goliath nonsense being posted here, I think I'll run out & get one of their frappacinos or something.

There was a form of boycott in the UK. Consumers don't like multi-nationals engaging in tax evasion. Market share for Costa Coffee went up 27% during the ( bi-partisan) criticism of Starbucks over its tax situation. So for every person, like you, choosing to drink more Starbucks as a protest against a crackdown on corporate greed, there were hundreds voting with their feet....and straight to Costa. I don't think it was any reflection on the coffee so much as a general distaste for those who don't want to pay their fair share.

There's only one course of appropriate action: Starbucks boycott! In fact, Starbucks protest! Stop the bullies. Who's in?

I just love that chirping sound crickets make...

(I wonder how many thousands of cups of coffee Starbucks sold while I was typing that.)
((Oops, there go another few thousand.))
I never drink coffee, but just as my personal form of protest for all the David & Goliath nonsense being posted here, I think I'll run out & get one of their frappacinos or something.

This is the Lehman Brothers perspective on corporate ethics and responsibility. What you fail to mention is that Starbucks deliberately structured their operation in the UK in order to avoid any tax liability.and as a consequence deny that they have ever made a profit ( cf the comments to their US shareholders about being extremely pleased with the profit from UK operations). I'm not convinced by the maniacal rantings of someone on Forbes online suggesting that a mob had blackmailed Starbucks into paying the tax they wanted to avoid: in fact it was the CONSERVATIVE govt. Not even Labour.

Frankly I don't see much of a distinction between between some of the corruption in Thailand and that undertaken by tax avoiding corporations....in both cases the $$$$$ goes to people who are not entitled to it

As for Starbung, I see no real similarity with other brand ripoffs. No-one, absolutely no-one, would EVER be confused between these 2 brands and the matter is so trivial it should be thrown out of court

As far as Starbucks operations in Britain:

I'm going to leave out all the quotes on whether the British NHS is good or bad and all the quotes on a "nanny/welfare state" Britain. Because, IMO, they are not relevant.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law.

Tax avoidance is using applicable tax laws to pay the least amount of taxes that you are required to pay. There is nothing legally or ethically wrong with that. And 99.99% plus of all individuals and businesses do exactly that. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

I don't know what is in this brand, but some of them can be dangerous. Kanebo Japan had to issue a recall of its whitening cream after hundreds suffered adverse effects from rhododenol. Including Thais.

...almost beyond belief, wisuk acquitted, the lighting guy gets 3 years. Staggering, even for Thailand

No. Starbucks conceded that they could not compete in a sophisticated coffee market, in respect of the closure of many of its Australian stores. They are right and it was a good call. Billions of dollars profit? For years they claimed to be making a loss in the UK until they were publicly shamed over tax avoidance. I will support smaller shops and chains rather than Starbucks. It';s not an American thing. Even Au Bon Pain makes better coffee and is, notwithstanding the name, American . How petty of these greedy F$#@s to pursue this guy..

http://www.smh.com.au/business/starbucks-closes-61-shops-cuts-700-jobs-20080729-3mt1.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUKBRE89E0EX20121015

And this from a country which eats Vegemite, a product made from leftover brewer's yeast, and belonging to Kraft foods, an American company who's cheese was just dissed. (I don't like Kraft cheese OR Vegemite.)

But anyone who could choke down Vegemite has absolutely nothing to say about taste.

BTW, Starbucks hand picks and contracts for the high end coffee beans as recognized around the world. Make that 62 countries and 19,000 stores making billions of dollars.

If I was from a backwater former slave colony that had never seen a good, premium coffee bean before, I'd probably happily squat by my fire and stir up some junk too. Those other millions upon millions of people relaxing in a Starbucks while enjoying their coffee and free WiFi just wouldn't know what they were missing.

Cheers.

Well, that's exactly the point I was making....cheap, tasteless, sugary crap in a seemingly endless choice of minor variations on a theme, of course that will appeal in the US market. How could it not, given, As I acknowledged, it is well-marketed. But the home-spun hype and the Ma and Pa Kettle clientele will not work everywhere.
The coffee spot on 1st floor of Amarin was one of the original coffee shops in BKK. It has been in the same location for 30 years, plus . It's no more a threat to Starbucks than Starbung.
But yes, Starbucks does well in appealing to the lowest common denominator..and making them feel it's something special ( the same branding strategy as many American food companies). Enjoy.

Yes, it's the coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese...bland , appeals to the mass market but very cleverly promoted and marketed . Someone said hi-so. I don't think so....closer to McDonald's end of the scale

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling " coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese" that nobody wanted to buy.

I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company; They didn't take advice from you!

And if it were Thai on Thai? I have no idea, just asking....

I just asked my wife what she thinks would happen if I did this to a Thai? Her response. " You would probably be dead within 24 hours. If not you would be severely beaten."

no. The most objectionable thing about the way Starbucks behaved in the UK was the disingenuous claim to be a good corporate citizen until it was discovered that they structured their tax arrangements to AVOID paying Any tax at all. When that was exposed, there was outrage and they agreed to pay ( while denying they had any legal obligation to do so). Had they not agreed, I suspect they would have experienced the same result as their Australian stores. Starbucks plays this silly " we're all warm and fuzzy folk from Seattle" crap . Bullying some poor street vendor....pathetic.

Sent from my ipad

It wouldn't matter if the product Starbucks sold was reconstituted rat poop! That is not the issue. I don't want to ever read from posters who somehow make extraordinary leaps of illogic as somehow justifying a company protecting it's brand and image, and later complain about Thais being thick and illogical.

Some say Starbucks should just pay more taxes in UK out of kindness or some silly reason. That is not how the tax game is played. Assuming you have worked and paid taxes, did you purposefully overpay your taxes? I doubt it. Management is there to maximize returns to investors. Paying more than legally required would mean less to shareholders. Duh. Modern marketing is about image more than product. You may not like that, but that is how it is. If people want to think they are more hiso going to Starbucks, and are willing to pay the premium, that is their choice. Your not going there and thinking the coffee is crap also your choice, which you are entitled to. How many of you corporate bashers have Apple products? that is major snob product and charging far more than it costs to make, with much larger profit margins (which explains why they have such huge profits, btw).

Yes, it's the coffee equivalent of Kraft processed cheese...bland , appeals to the mass market but very cleverly promoted and marketed . Someone said hi-so. I don't think so....closer to McDonald's end of the scale

ote name="Baloo22" post="6948094" timestamp="1382362040"]

Khun JSixpack aptly described the mentality of the shrill Starbucks haters in another topic last year. His description of them and his observations were very accurate and astute. They remain accurate and still apply today!

If I may quote;

Something, but more so the very word "Starbucks." It's always caused a knee-jerk reaction for many of the members. The reasons are

• it's American, appeals to the vast America-bashing crowd here;
• it's global, anti-globalists hate it;
• it's not Thai, anathema to our Thaier-than-thou farangs;
• it's a chain;
• it's a corporation;
• it's relatively upscale for a mere coffee shop, many can't comfortably afford to go there;
• Starbucks coffee tastes like Starbucks coffee--not what some think coffee should taste like, not that they would know anyway;
• Starbucks isn't just about coffee but about the other products, service, and atmosphere--which many disingenuously ignore;
• some need to cling to a kind of reverse snobbery for illusory self-affirmation.

The original comment can be found here.

[

I remember seeing her pic in one of the HK film mags ( around early 70s?) with others from the Shaw Brothers studio. I can't remember seeing any of the films but in any event she would have been dubbed into Cantonese. I'll see if I can find a link to the mag, but it's been a few years since I last saw it in an online exhibition

quote name=tingtongteesood" post="6947481" timestamp="1382350907]

What outcome ( other than the miss universe argument)? Did they meet a bad end? As far as I know, Jomjai did some films in HK and was quite popular . Is there more to their stories.?

I always fancied Jomjai Jarin & Sirikwan Nantasiri...

Some of the 70's finest! Sad about the outcome though.

Do you know the names of any of those films she made please ? I want to see them...

Starbucks not paying any tax at all is somehow a good thing? So all profits repatriated to US shareholders is somehow equated to not subsidising a welfare state. Don't quite get that logic. Your comment about noses in the air reminded me of the last time I was in a Starbucks in Thailand. The server had her finger so far up her nose , it would have been dangerously close to brain cavity. No doubt staff ( and one would hope, standards) have improved in the 10 years since then.

quote name="3SoiDogNight" post="6947532" timestamp="1382351780"]?

Ah! It's been a while since we had yet another Starbuck-bashing thread to bring out all our usual clowns--the nanny-staters, anti-globalists, anti-corporates, antiamericanistas, phony environmentalists, Occupy Wallstreeters, dizzy little Che Guevaras, wannabe coffee snobs, Cheap Charlies, farang *kee noks, populist demagogues, and mostly just plain ol' trolls pilin' on. Always a good laugh.

All been said before and will be again and again and again . . . here.

Meanwhile I'll be sure to stop in Starbucks for a cuppa next time I'm near one. Price doesn't bother me a bit (I can afford it), tastes OK, nice enough atmosphere, air-con, blueberry cheesecake (!), cleanliness, service, wi-fi, convenient locations, music, comfort.

Love it if they ain't letting the Brits extort them to pay for the failed welfare state. Use the money productively to build more Starbucks and give people real jobs. Hee hee!

Amen, Amen and Amen to that! ! !

Good one! You need to let me borrow that quote. Spot on!

These must be that handful of bitter expats that constantly gripe about the cost of things going up in a developing country.

Yet have their nose up in the air thinking they're better than the rest of the world as they sit around drinking cheap beer and watching soccer.

I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance proudly being displayed in this thread. How on earth did a topic about Starbucks turn in to an America bashing free for all? Not sure how 1 company's decision became reflective of a nation of over 315 million people.

My previous post I already mentioned that I'm an American that is not a fan of Starbuck's coffee because of their taste. The price doesn't bother me much because I'm paying for the air conditioning and comfortable seats inside - something a push cart operator doesn't offer. I do prefer the push-cart operator coffee when I'm on the go, which is most of the time when I drink coffee.

Kudos to Starbucks for not feeding the welfare state in the U.K.!

That said, I still will defend the Starbung coffee push cart operator.

No, Starbucks should have just walked away and left this guy alone. Starbucks May be correct in law but they are not the greatest example of good corporate citizens, eg, the tax arrangements with The Netherlands to avoid paying ANY tax in th UK ,,,for years, until shamed into doing so. While I doubt that mr Bung's coffee is up to much, I don' t believe they should pursue him. He's no threat

uote name="Emdog" post="6942651" timestamp="1382248178"]

As pointed out, Starbucks is protecting their brand as they should, given the rules of capitalism. It is my opinion they probably don't give a dam_n what the "stop picking on the little guy" crowd think of them, because those people wouldn't go to a Starbucks anyway.

Indeed the fee is now included in the ticket, although Thailand was the last major tourist destination to introduce that arrangement and persisted with the airport payment booths for more than a decade after everyone else had gone to the inclusive system. Jet star Asia lists all govt and airport taxes/fees on its ticketing site.....flying out of BKK costs close to 1700 in fees alone. Presumably this medical fee will be additional

This is just another tourist tax to fill their pockets.

When on holiday in Thailand for less than 90 days, I am covered by:

1) the Belgian sick insurance

2) an international travel insurance from AXA, which is an extension of my car insurance.

I really don't see why I should pay 500 baht for something I don't need.

A few years ago, everybody had to pay 500 baht "airport tax" when leaving Thailand. I believe this tax is now included in the ticket price.

What outcome ( other than the miss universe argument)? Did they meet a bad end? As far as I know, Jomjai did some films in HK and was quite popular . Is there more to their stories.?

I always fancied Jomjai Jarin & Sirikwan Nantasiri...

Some of the 70's finest! Sad about the outcome though.

One problem with this strategy is that the margin on Chinese tourist revenue is wafer-thin. They do not spend much more than the cost of the tour package and recent changes in Chinese Govt regulations makes it very difficult for the Tavel company to force extras on the group. They are not high value tourists and it would be extremely unwise for anyone in the TAT to get too enthusiastic about the increase in numbers from china! particularly when that growth is seen in the context of a plateau/decline is some genuinely high-revenue markets. The Chinese will come through a Chinese wholesaler, stay in Chinese owned hotels, travel on Chinese airlines ( or trains in the longer term). Sure, Thailand should encourage more tourists from china but not at the expense of the high-value, generally 2nd, 3rd, 4th time visitors from the traditional source countries. As for the suggestion that Chinese would want to shop at Central....the lunacy of that simply defies belief. before contemplating a huge increase in inbound numbers, Thailand needs to fix the airport issue or risk losing part of the big-spending crowd