Bangkok: Starbucks demands arrests in IP case

[JSixpack]

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!

BTW, be sure to read about how Thailand feels about non-Thais using the name "Jasmine" or harmless variants such as "Jasmati" on non-Thai rice or even attempting to create another variety of jasmine rice--which Thailand regards as its own intellectual property. Whoops!

Back to the bashing!

Hey--nobody's pushed the McDonald's hot button lately . . . .

Edited October 19, 2013 by JSixpack

[monkeycountry]

As for taxes, as long as they do not break the law, why should starbucks or anyone pay more than they have to? If the uk or anywhere wants them to pay more, then simply change the related laws.

as for the two idiots with the coffee cart. Starbucks did warn them several times and asked them to change their logo etc. They decided not to listen, and now face a completely reasonable lawsuit.

A 300,000 baht law suit?

You can assault someone in Thailand and your fine will be less than the bill for a round of coffees and muffins at Starbucks!

it does not really matter if it is 300.000 or 300 million. The point is they stole someone elses property. The owner found out and was kind enough to let the thieves return the stolen goods and that would be the end of it. However, even after they got caught, the thieves were arrogant enough to keep the stolen property, so now they pay the price!

[rametindallas]

"In my experience, governments are not shy about going after all the taxes they can"

Really?, you may wish to spend some quality time in the UK where you'll learn that not everybody is created equal when it comes to paying taxes, especially if you're one of Osbornes favoured few, the aptly named Bankers for example.

Do you, personally, pay taxes you don't have to? No corporation actually pays taxes; it is called an expense and is passed on to the consumer of that corporation's goods and services. Those are who are paying the corporate tax. Corporate taxes are a stealth tax on the people who buy/use the corporation's goods and services. If you raise taxes on McDonald's, the shareholders will not be hurt, they pass that 'expense' on; but the price of their burgers will go up. Who is paying that tax now? The individuals who own the corporation, stockholders, etc., pay income taxes.

What part of corporation tax being a tax on a companies profits do you not understand?

The only thing stealth here is a company like Starbucks with sales of 400 million GBP a year claiming they make no profit in the UK to pay tax on! For 4 years! And under 5 million GBP for 14 years!

No, you carry on defending the indefensible,

Wow! The UK government must be horribly corrupt not to prosecute Starbucks and to let them rip you off for so long. Do you. personally, pay taxes the government doesn't say you owe?

[rametindallas]

In their typically "big American company" arrogance, they have just blown the PR opportunity of all time. Had they used some brains rather than bullying arrogance, they could have presented these two guys with a brand new fully painted coffee cart with all the media publicity. But no! they are just to used to walking all over the little guy. Just hope someone can organise a boycott of Starbucks throughout Thailand.

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would know that Starbucks in Thailand is owned and operated by a Thai company. oldsailor35 is just an America basher lol

[CHRISTIANa9]

The only ones, that should be arrested here, are the bosses of Starbucks for overcharging the brown liquid, they call coffee!!

Right on ! The two worst cups of coffe I ever bought were from a starbucks in Bangkok and another one in Chengdu. Both highly priced and notable by their absence of that one vital ingredient ... COFFEE ! Just cups of hot water with an extremely faint brown tinge. They got me twice, shame on me ! Never again.

Strange, I experience that in Philippines and in Malaysia more than 1 occasion. Probably staff not following sop or local franchise trying to up margin.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[rametindallas]

Starbucks need to get over themselves and extract their head from their collective corporate arse.

The only humorous thing Starbucks is hearing Americans rave on about how good the coffee is. Most of the world wouldn't even degrease their car engines with the stuff.

True, there is nothing special about Starbucks. Their success was due to the fact that they opened in the US, where getting a decent cup of coffee was as rare as seeing a polar bear.

They opened in Israel in 2001, only to fail miserably and close after 2 years. The local coffee chains were just better, and are growing continuously since.

But to the point:

I don't see how a hand-pushed coffee cart can cause any harm to Starbucks with it's dozens of branches in bkk.

This seems like a silly dispute.

If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Another point would be, why does it make a difference if the thief is small time or big time; you have still been robbed. Let me personalize it for you. Would it make a difference to you and your family if a poor thief with six children to feed robbed your house or a gang of professional thieves robbed your house? You suffer a loss in both cases. With your logic, you would let the poor thief off with no punishment (and even allow him to reoffend) and prosecute the professional gang. What would your family (stockholders), that your are responsible to, say about your generous spirit?

[Clutch]

After all this coffee talk I'm getting a real hankering for some Starbung coffee, I'm mean Starbucks coffee (man I'm always getting those 2 confused!)

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[OldChinaHam]

"The U.S. coffee chain also wants the men find THB300,000 plus interest."

No!

Let me Find THB300,000 plus interest,

Instead.

[LomSak27]

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

By the way does anyone know if it was Starbucks, corporate (Seattle) or Starbucks proxy partner (Thailand) that got clothing in a twist and brought legal suit??

Any of you bandwagon jump-trollers know ???

[OldChinaHam]

I hit my head on the old bung.

Now,

I am seeing stars.

I agree, I never would drink at the bung hole,

I would prefer the water hole.

And I would never drink at Starbung,

When I could have cake and eat it at Starbucks.

I think they should have ignored it, because now I will always be calling Starbucks Starbungs.

And laughing about it.

I may open a StarBuckRogers, and see if I get sued by both companies at the same time?

Yes, I think I will try to do so.

[DocN]

For all you defenders of Starbuck's actions (and to me personally it doesn't matter, which mega- company is in question...I don't drink coffee anyways): Seriously?

I mean, IF the guy had a nice place opened up, with aircon and lounge- sofas and wifi and food and THEN put the "starbungs"- sign over the door and at all the windows...I could agree, with Starbucks complaining.

But for the love of god: it is a PUSH- CART!

Unless they show me their fleet of Starbucks push- carts, I will go on to mock them, because this is just ridiculous!

[Blindside]

I agree that Starbungs have violated the IP laws. Whether I agree with those laws that is another thing entirely. So am still going to side with them.

To all those defending Starbucks so hard and pointing out the IP obligations we have to meet to make the world a better place blah blah .......... I hope you do not have any illegally downloaded movies, series or music. I hope you don't buy movies at the market etc. etc. Those are covered by the same set of laws.

If you do, then you are basically a hypocrite!

[LomSak27]

so no posters here, have any idea if it is Starbucks thai partner or Starbucks corporate instigated the legal suit?

figures

[rametindallas]

I agree that Starbungs have violated the IP laws. Whether I agree with those laws that is another thing entirely. So am still going to side with them.

To all those defending Starbucks so hard and pointing out the IP obligations we have to meet to make the world a better place blah blah .......... I hope you do not have any illegally downloaded movies, series or music. I hope you don't buy movies at the market etc. etc. Those are covered by the same set of laws.

If you do, then you are basically a hypocrite!

Actually, those examples you give are of copyright infringement and not trademark violation. They are completely different things and are government by different laws. The OP is about trademark violation and trademark violation is much more damaging to a company to ignore, than copyright violations. Why do you think Starbucks is spending so much money on these two 'little' guys? Why do you think they are willing to accept so much bad publicity. It is because they HAVE to. They have spent millions building their trademark and have stockholders' investments to protect. It would be corporate malfeasance to not protect their trademark. Here's the difference. If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo. Sorry you can't see the difference; it's been clearly explained by a dozen posters. I hope your screen name does not mean you choose not to see one side of an issue.

[rametindallas]

so no posters here, have any idea if it is Starbucks thai partner or Starbucks corporate instigated the legal suit?

figures

lomatopo post #52 wrote:

I think the large retailing conglomerate, Central Pattana (Group) (CPN on the SET), owns the Starbucks franchise here so maybe best to direct indignation towards them?

[lovetotravel]

http://www.slideshare.net/prolificidea/star-bucksfdi

Occasional Wholly Owned Subsidiary…Britain: Buyout of Seattle Coffee Co: Enter UK market, remove competition, already established chain. Thailand: Buyout of Coffee Partners: Reluctant for JV, would have taken time, effort and Cost.

Thailand: Starbucks started with a licensing agreement with Coffee Partners, alocal Thai company. As per licensing agreement terms – Coffee partners had to open 20 stores in 5 years – incompetent to raise funds from Thai Banks. July 2000 : Starbucks acquired Coffee partners for $ 12 Mio. Now, strong control on expansion strategy, Starbucks had 103 stores by 2007.

[monkeycountry]

I agree that Starbungs have violated the IP laws. Whether I agree with those laws that is another thing entirely. So am still going to side with them.

To all those defending Starbucks so hard and pointing out the IP obligations we have to meet to make the world a better place blah blah .......... I hope you do not have any illegally downloaded movies, series or music. I hope you don't buy movies at the market etc. etc. Those are covered by the same set of laws.

If you do, then you are basically a hypocrite!

Please google "copyright" and "trademark" and let me know in which country they are covered by the same set of laws?

[harrry]

Hmm ....the logo is green....long a muslim colour....the ring can hardy be copyrighted. I see the star and crescant....definitely muslim. Now the font may or may not be copyright. The picture bears little resemblance but is the most arguable item. Most muslims will not use images of people or animals.

[richard_smith237]

I agree that Starbungs have violated the IP laws. Whether I agree with those laws that is another thing entirely. So am still going to side with them.

To all those defending Starbucks so hard and pointing out the IP obligations we have to meet to make the world a better place blah blah .......... I hope you do not have any illegally downloaded movies, series or music. I hope you don't buy movies at the market etc. etc. Those are covered by the same set of laws.

If you do, then you are basically a hypocrite!

Ouch !... while not 100% true due to the differences in in IP law between Copyright and Trademarks (brand) this is still a good point...

Many of us are taking the moral high ground while also infringing on Copyright its not exactly the same, but not completely unrelated...

Edited October 20, 2013 by richard_smith237

[Benmart]

I agree that Starbungs have violated the IP laws. Whether I agree with those laws that is another thing entirely. So am still going to side with them.

To all those defending Starbucks so hard and pointing out the IP obligations we have to meet to make the world a better place blah blah .......... I hope you do not have any illegally downloaded movies, series or music. I hope you don't buy movies at the market etc. etc. Those are covered by the same set of laws.

If you do, then you are basically a hypocrite!

Actually, those examples you give are of copyright infringement and not trademark violation. They are completely different things and are government by different laws. The OP is about trademark violation and trademark violation is much more damaging to a company to ignore, than copyright violations. Why do you think Starbucks is spending so much money on these two 'little' guys? Why do you think theMy are willing to accept so much bad publicity. It is because they HAVE to. They have spent millions building their trademark and have stockholders' investments to protect. It would be corporate malfeasance to not protect their trademark. Here's the difference. If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo. Sorry you can't see the difference; it's been clearly explained by a dozen posters. I hope your screen name does not mean you choose not to see one side of an issue.

You are correct. But unfortunately, there are people that will side with the "little guy" out of pity or downright anti-whateverism. If they were suffering a loss I would imagine they would change their position.

[BarryM]

Agree with Starbucks. What what CP do if a Thai upcountry started selling off his scrawny farmyard chickens to look like a CP product, instead of they factory produced tasteless sh@te we all know and love?

[Emdog]

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 damn what the "stop picking on the little guy" crowd think of them, because those people wouldn't go to a Starbucks anyway.

[Thomas33399]

It is good to see that the majority of replies to this topic recognise just how ridiculous these <deleted> at Starbucks are. It shows what the truth of the matter is.

[teatree]

The only ones, that should be arrested here, are the bosses of Starbucks for overcharging the brown liquid, they call coffee!!

Overcharging is when you agree to a price beforehand and then charge a higher price later.

What Starbucks does is called selling coffee.

Agree. And creating a relatively clean, riff raffless and peaceful respite with the high prices. It works well with this excellent example of riff raff.

Sums up the mindset of a lot of Stsrbucks fans.

"I drink at Starbucks so that makes me hi-so".

If someone wants to go the SB then fine, I dont care. But dont pretend you are somehow more sophisticated simply by going there.

Pathetic.

[richard_smith237]

It is good to see that the majority of replies to this topic recognise just how ridiculous these wanke_rs at Starbucks are. It shows what the truth of the matter is.

Please enlighten us... what is the truth of the matter ?

Two brothers flouting IP laws by copying the trademark of an internationally recognised brand ?

Do you see something else here ? Two brothers being picked on unnecessarily by Starbucks, their sign and naming in no way resemble Starbucks. In fact, had Starbucks never existed Starbung coffee and Signage would be exactly as it is ?

Of course it seems unfair - The Big Corporate Giant against the little guy - however the little guy is in the wrong which ever way this is looked at. Starbucks may have crappy coffee, but they have a widely recognised brand to protect.

In protecting their brand Starbucks have attempted to do the decent thing by asking Starbung to remove their sign, this was ignored... Why ????

Starbucks are now taking the next logical step and following up with a charge under IP laws.... They've been reasonable, the brothers have had a chance.

[hawker9000]

The only ones, that should be arrested here, are the bosses of Starbucks for overcharging the brown liquid, they call coffee!!

Right on ! The two worst cups of coffe I ever bought were from a starbucks in Bangkok and another one in Chengdu. Both highly priced and notable by their absence of that one vital ingredient ... COFFEE ! Just cups of hot water with an extremely faint brown tinge. They got me twice, shame on me ! Never again.

Strange, I experience that in Philippines and in Malaysia more than 1 occasion. Probably staff not following sop or local franchise trying to up margin.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

@phantomfid. Then don't DRINK the stuff! How much more simple can it(you) BE!? But your taste in brew has absolutely NOTHING to do with an infringed trademark. For once the rule of LAW in distant view, instead of the rule of baht, and STILL some (thankfully) few preoccupied with personal "taste"! Unbelievable. Yeah, why don't we just let YOU decide who the law is going to apply to, and to whom it doesn't? Guess we all better learn to like what YOU like, eh?

Sent from me using the BrainCells app

Edited October 20, 2013 by hawker9000

[Prbkk]

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.

[JSixpack]

Starbucks should have just walked away and left this guy alone.

Nope, this guy should merely create his own brand as Starbucks did. Doesn't matter who he is. He was warned already. But he has to be stomped before he'll listen--and others like him. So be it: stomp 'im flat.

If he has good coffee at a good price, he'll have customers enough w/o trying to steal the Starbucks brand. Cf. Benjamit.

[vhartling]

We all need to send an email to Starbucks and tell them to back off. To try to ruin two enterprising Thai men financially is totally despicable. Nasty nasty corporate greed.

[Bikkii]

Does anyone even drink that muddy rice paddy water they call starbucks? I tried it once, never again. Give me Starbung anyday or a kafai yen for a fraction of the price!