Bangkok: Starbucks demands arrests in IP case

[Baloo22]

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.

And so exactly when did the Crown Prosecutor/Revenue Service or whatever you call it over there bring Starbucks into court and when was Starbucks convicted of violating British tax laws and tax evasion??

Oh wait. That was right at half-past never! Since Starbucks DID NOT violate British law.

As far as your nonsense of "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 "; You need to read, and read again, the comments below by Rametindallas. They will help you understand.

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?

<snip>

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. <snip>

[hawker9000]

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.

[Prbkk]

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.

[hawker9000]

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.

Edited October 23, 2013 by hawker9000

[Prbkk]

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.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

The entire tax set up is so that the local entities actually do not make a profit. Ideally, they should make precisely zero. This is achieved by making each shop pay a fat royalty to head office in Switzerland every year for access to the marketing materials and that they HAVE TO buy Starbucks coffee, which is invoiced out of Switerland from Starbucks with a nice fat margin on it. They make plenty fro their business in the UK, it's just that no one in the UK gets to see it.

Of course, the local exchequer gets his 20% VAT and any taxes levied on income of employees in the country, but they don't get hold of corporate tax, because there is no profit. Thousands of companies do the same thing. Of course, mom and pop shops don't have access to purchasing coffee from themselves in Switzerland, and they face an unfair competition.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[WAERTH]

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

[hawker9000]

Ah, I see. So it's down now to " messages" from the public (and the breast-beating of posturing politicians). So you're a big fan of mob rule. And not so big on Rule of Law. But I'll just bet you hate it when corporations like Starbucks use their wealth to send "messages" via the media, say, during political campaigns and in opposition to political initiatives YOU happen to favor. Honestly, you could go swimming in the hypocrisy in which this topic is absolutely awash.

And when the vigilantes come, you WON'T be one of those screaming "Law and Order!". OK then.

Edited October 23, 2013 by hawker9000

[Tywais]

Starbung defies multinational

[Bikkii]

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!

[Baloo22]

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.

Just last night I was walking by a Starbucks store here in Chiang Mai. Didn't intend to go in there. But when I walked by and saw the store, I went in and ordered a nice large ice tea as my own deliberate response to all the Starbucks-hating chirpers here! It did make it taste just that much better!

[hawker9000]

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...

[Prbkk]

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...

[Bikkii]

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...

Clearly your man of absolutely no taste! Enjoy your pitiful attempt at coffee and food tommorow. One thing is for sure, we certainly won't cross paths.

[hawker9000]

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...

Clearly your man of absolutely no taste! Enjoy your pitiful attempt at coffee and food tommorow. One thing is for sure, we certainly won't cross paths.

<sniff> I just don't know how I'll EVER be able to make it through the day! But that's OK. I don't hang out with that many scofflaws anyway.

[connda]

I used to be a Starbucks customer, but abject greed in the corporate world like this totally turns me off to their (overpriced) products. There are times when corporate jackasses should simple ignore small vendors who present absolutely no threat to these corporate behemoths multi-multi billion dollars profit centers. All they have accomplished is to tarnish their own image, if you want to call moving your operation offshore to avoid US taxes and image. "He is without sin should cast the first stone'. I hope they win in Thai court and have the 'damages' are reduced to 1 baht and a slap on the hand. These corporate giants have better things to do other than pursuing Intelligent Property suits against some poor individual pushing around a hand cart -- you know, like evading their social responsibility to pay taxes. I won't go to Starbucks again. I found a place in Chiang Mai that makes coffee drinks that are just as good as Star(Big)Bucks for less than half the price. Star(Mega)Bucks would probably send out the hounds in an attempt to prove they pirated their 'specific coffee making methods'. Big government and Big Corporation have one thing in common -- Big Greed.

Connda; If you would read some of the previous comments on this topic, you would know that Starbucks cannot "simple ignore small vendors who present absolutely no threat to these corporate behemoths". It isn't that simple. Read rametindallas's comment below. Besides that, Starbucks gave those copy-cat thieves the opportunity to cease their illegal actions before Starbucks started any legal actions against them.

Starbucks has been very responsible in their actions.

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?

Connda;

Your statement that Starbucks has "moving your operation offshore to avoid US taxes" is factually incorrect and zany nonsense.

Starbucks has thousands of stores in the U.S. and it's corporate headquarters is in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

Your statement that Starbucks is " evading their social responsibility to pay taxes" is again factually incorrect and more zany nonsense.

Starbucks DID NOT evade paying taxes. They used applicable tax laws to pay the least amount of taxes that they are required to pay. And 99.99% plus of all individuals and businesses do exactly that. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally, ethically, or socially 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.

Your comment " Star(Mega)Bucks would probably send out the hounds in an attempt to prove they pirated their 'specific coffee making methods'." is yet more zany nonsense.

If your favored Chiang Mai coffee house does not start using the Starbucks logo in an intent to deceive customers or take some action to deceive people that they are making Starbucks coffee, etc; They have very little to worry about any legal action from Starbucks.

My bad. I retract my statement regarding StarBucks avoiding taxes in the US. They were avoiding taxes in the UK. That makes them a paragon of social responsibility. And chasing down cart vendors for IP infringement is an exercise in diminishing returns. and a waste of time. Just my opinion, No one has to agree with me.

[JSixpack]

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...

+1

Made it a point to stop by Starbucks in Pattaya today and had a cuppa. Business is great!

It's laughable to think any "damage" is being done to Starbuck's reputation. Talked to a Thai today who'd read the story and he'd had a good laugh. He also agreed that Starbucks was well within its rights to stop the pirating of its logo. Companies that don't "take care" of their brand WILL be pirated here. Thai companies "take care" that their brands aren't pirated. They don't need to resort to the court system.

The story is global because it's just kinda funny. It appeals to Johnny Lunchbuckets the world over. 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, hypocritical "fair share" beggars--all will unthinkingly support Starbung.

But, though such indoctrinated are vast in number, they don't patronize Starbucks anyway, never have. They aren't the target market.

If anything, the story brought some good publicity to Starbucks among its present customers and potential customers who aren't members of the above groups.

[F4UCorsair]

It's unfortunate that the little guy cops it. Sure, he's tried to capitalize on another's name, and the law is all about precedents, so if Starbucks does nothing, then it can be seen as permissive, and when a thousand others are doing it, they have no punch in the courts, so they must act.

Many years ago, I knew a Greek family here in Melbourne, Australia. The parents had been to the US on a vacation and liked the name 'Planet Hollywood', so when they came back, they registered it for their little hamburger joint in Richmond, that had been previously known as Kosta's Hamburger Joint. The name Planet Hollywood had not been previously registered.

When Planet Hollywood wanted to move into Australia, and found the name already registered, the company intimidated the poor (now ageing) Greeks and they relinquished the name rather than go bankrupt fighting a multinational. PH didn't offer to buy the name. They told the owners that if they didn't give it up, they'd have their a$$es dragged through the courts until they had no money left.

That's the other side of the coin, bullying corporations.

Edited October 26, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[hawker9000]

It's unfortunate that the little guy cops it. Sure, he's tried to capitalize on another's name, and the law is all about precedents, so if Starbucks does nothing, then it can be seen as permissive, and when a thousand others are doing it, they have no punch in the courts, so they must act.

Many years ago, I knew a Greek family here in Melbourne, Australia. The parents had been to the US on a vacation and liked the name 'Planet Hollywood', so when they came back, they registered it for their little hamburger joint in Richmond, that had been previously known as Kosta's Hamburger Joint. The name Planet Hollywood had not been previously registered.

When Planet Hollywood wanted to move into Australia, and found the name already registered, the company intimidated the poor (now ageing) Greeks and they relinquished the name rather than go bankrujpt fighting a multinational. PH didn't offer to buy the name. They told the owners that if they didn't give it up, they'd have their a$$es dragged through the courts until they had no money left.

That's the other side of the coin, bullying corporations.

And that story, if it's true, has all exactly what to do with this one, where the "little guy" is clearly the interloper and the "bully corporation" (ya' just gotta' laugh...) has played entirely by the rules?

[Prbkk]

Starbucks caught pinching a recipe from a small UK bakery, Bea's of Bloomsbury and now has the gall to try to trademark it. I won't post the link but if anyone wants to read more about the greed of this corporation, it is easily found online. In the interests of their shareholders, they will stop at nothing.

[Bikkii]

Quote

"Made it a point to stop by Starbucks in Pattaya today and had a cuppa. Business is great!"

Then followed by lunch at McDonalds, afternoon tea at Burger King and dinner at KFC. Well bud, thank god these MNC's have the likes of people like you frequenting their businesses and not the cheap charlie, anti-globalist blah blah blah you claim the rest of us are.

[Asiantravel]

It's unfortunate that the little guy cops it. Sure, he's tried to capitalize on another's name, and the law is all about precedents, so if Starbucks does nothing, then it can be seen as permissive, and when a thousand others are doing it, they have no punch in the courts, so they must act.

Many years ago, I knew a Greek family here in Melbourne, Australia. The parents had been to the US on a vacation and liked the name 'Planet Hollywood', so when they came back, they registered it for their little hamburger joint in Richmond, that had been previously known as Kosta's Hamburger Joint. The name Planet Hollywood had not been previously registered.

When Planet Hollywood wanted to move into Australia, and found the name already registered, the company intimidated the poor (now ageing) Greeks and they relinquished the name rather than go bankrujpt fighting a multinational. PH didn't offer to buy the name. They told the owners that if they didn't give it up, they'd have their a$$es dragged through the courts until they had no money left.

That's the other side of the coin, bullying corporations.

And that story, if it's true, has all exactly what to do with this one, where the "little guy" is clearly the interloper and the "bully corporation" (ya' just gotta' laugh...) has played entirely by the rules?

Erin Brockovich would consider them a " bully corporation "

[Baloo22]

It's unfortunate that the little guy cops it. Sure, he's tried to capitalize on another's name, and the law is all about precedents, so if Starbucks does nothing, then it can be seen as permissive, and when a thousand others are doing it, they have no punch in the courts, so they must act.

Many years ago, I knew a Greek family here in Melbourne, Australia. The parents had been to the US on a vacation and liked the name 'Planet Hollywood', so when they came back, they registered it for their little hamburger joint in Richmond, that had been previously known as Kosta's Hamburger Joint. The name Planet Hollywood had not been previously registered.

When Planet Hollywood wanted to move into Australia, and found the name already registered, the company intimidated the poor (now ageing) Greeks and they relinquished the name rather than go bankrujpt fighting a multinational. PH didn't offer to buy the name. They told the owners that if they didn't give it up, they'd have their a$$es dragged through the courts until they had no money left.

That's the other side of the coin, bullying corporations.

And that story, if it's true, has all exactly what to do with this one, where the "little guy" is clearly the interloper and the "bully corporation" (ya' just gotta' laugh...) has played entirely by the rules?

Erin Brockovich would consider them a " bully corporation "

Erin who ??? Is she another ThaiVisa wannabe coffee snob ?

Or, is she some Oh-So-Trendy-Activist that was portrayed in a Hollywood movie and who's opinion on Starbucks equals "So What²".

[Scott]

Inflammatory post and reply deleted.

Please keep the discussion civil and on topic.

[FangFerang]

I find big American corporations to be heavy-handed, asinine, and insular. One feed supplier in the US, a farm feed supplier, who had been McDonald's Feed since 1912 had to change their name from the restaraunt chain doing exactly the same thing that Starphucks is trying to do. The problem, hard to see from here, is this: A large company files court brief after court brief, demanding a defendent's response, until the little guy goes bankrupt paying his lawyer.

That's the harsh and stupid reality of civil cases filed in the US. It is an engineered system where companies can literally steamroll anyone they like. Now they try to impose their one-sided approach to destroying small businesses here... I hope the Thais use every aspect of Thainess...the case takes years to evaluate...evidence gets lost...witnesses can't be found....and no one pays squat but the foriegn invader.

Here is a great chance for the legal system we all criticize to protect their own, and help keep corporate America from getting a foothold in their financial space. The American conceptualization of legal justice is pathetically insane, and I hope the nations reject all this nonsense. This situation does not hurt or cost Starphucks a single cent in revenue. And the legal argument..this is Our Intellectul Property is equally stupid...because in any context where such property has no value equates to a non-sequitor of immense and valueless proportions.

This is why Shakespeare said "the law is an arse".

[kimamey]

I find big American corporations to be heavy-handed, asinine, and insular. One feed supplier in the US, a farm feed supplier, who had been McDonald's Feed since 1912 had to change their name from the restaraunt chain doing exactly the same thing that Starphucks is trying to do. The problem, hard to see from here, is this: A large company files court brief after court brief, demanding a defendent's response, until the little guy goes bankrupt paying his lawyer.

That's the harsh and stupid reality of civil cases filed in the US. It is an engineered system where companies can literally steamroll anyone they like. Now they try to impose their one-sided approach to destroying small businesses here... I hope the Thais use every aspect of Thainess...the case takes years to evaluate...evidence gets lost...witnesses can't be found....and no one pays squat but the foriegn invader.

Here is a great chance for the legal system we all criticize to protect their own, and help keep corporate America from getting a foothold in their financial space. The American conceptualization of legal justice is pathetically insane, and I hope the nations reject all this nonsense. This situation does not hurt or cost Starphucks a single cent in revenue. And the legal argument..this is Our Intellectul Property is equally stupid...because in any context where such property has no value equates to a non-sequitor of immense and valueless proportions.

This is why Shakespeare said "the law is an arse".

I can find no report regarding McDonald's Feed having to change their name so I can't really comment on it but maybe McDonald's just offered them money and they decided it was worth it. McDonald's has taken legal action on several occasions which they haven't always won. They have been using the name for a long time so it gives them some advantage.

This case is different in that Starbung hadn't been using the name for years so the Starbucks logo was already in existence and it's clearly a lie that the Starbung one was inspired by Islam. Starbucks will get bad press for this whatever they do simply because they are bigger so you have to ask why they are doing it. I doubt many people will be confused and think the two operations are the same although I'm sure there will be some idiot. I can only think that if they let this go on the basis that it's a small operation that until this case wouldn't be known in much of Bangkok let alone Thailand itself then if people do it elsewhere it will be difficult to stop as they willpoint out the lack of action in this case. If this guy were to poison someone and there were pictures in the press it would probably affect Starbucks. Stupid I know but that's the sort of thing that can happen.

I don't why you seem to think that intellectual property has no value. If names and logos had no value then they wouldn't be copied on such a vast scale. If you live in or visit Thailand you can't fail to see it. Why do you think these brothers used the Starbucks logo knowing the risk. I can think of 2 reasons. Firstly they thought the name would persuade people to come to them. Even if the name doesn't confuse it will attract the eye as it's unusual to see what looks like a Starbucks logo in such a position. Secondly they may have thought that this was all good publicity and I suspect they are right.

[Bikkii]

I find big American corporations to be heavy-handed, asinine, and insular. One feed supplier in the US, a farm feed supplier, who had been McDonald's Feed since 1912 had to change their name from the restaraunt chain doing exactly the same thing that Starphucks is trying to do. The problem, hard to see from here, is this: A large company files court brief after court brief, demanding a defendent's response, until the little guy goes bankrupt paying his lawyer.

That's the harsh and stupid reality of civil cases filed in the US. It is an engineered system where companies can literally steamroll anyone they like. Now they try to impose their one-sided approach to destroying small businesses here... I hope the Thais use every aspect of Thainess...the case takes years to evaluate...evidence gets lost...witnesses can't be found....and no one pays squat but the foriegn invader.

Here is a great chance for the legal system we all criticize to protect their own, and help keep corporate America from getting a foothold in their financial space. The American conceptualization of legal justice is pathetically insane, and I hope the nations reject all this nonsense. This situation does not hurt or cost Starphucks a single cent in revenue. And the legal argument..this is Our Intellectul Property is equally stupid...because in any context where such property has no value equates to a non-sequitor of immense and valueless proportions.

This is why Shakespeare said "the law is an arse".

Intersting thoughts FF and have to say I agree.

It is these MNC's and their marketing strategies that are mostly to blame for Thailand becoming a fat nation. In fact, within the top 5 of ASEAN countries.

It is bizarre, you see interview after interview with school students being asked what their favourite food is and not one I have seen has said tom yum goong, pad see ew or gai pad prik. No now it is pizza, french fries and burgers. Shame on you MNC's, not bad enough that you made my generation fat and the ones before, you are now not content until you have obesitised the whole world.

[kimamey]

I find big American corporations to be heavy-handed, asinine, and insular. One feed supplier in the US, a farm feed supplier, who had been McDonald's Feed since 1912 had to change their name from the restaraunt chain doing exactly the same thing that Starphucks is trying to do. The problem, hard to see from here, is this: A large company files court brief after court brief, demanding a defendent's response, until the little guy goes bankrupt paying his lawyer.

That's the harsh and stupid reality of civil cases filed in the US. It is an engineered system where companies can literally steamroll anyone they like. Now they try to impose their one-sided approach to destroying small businesses here... I hope the Thais use every aspect of Thainess...the case takes years to evaluate...evidence gets lost...witnesses can't be found....and no one pays squat but the foriegn invader.

Here is a great chance for the legal system we all criticize to protect their own, and help keep corporate America from getting a foothold in their financial space. The American conceptualization of legal justice is pathetically insane, and I hope the nations reject all this nonsense. This situation does not hurt or cost Starphucks a single cent in revenue. And the legal argument..this is Our Intellectul Property is equally stupid...because in any context where such property has no value equates to a non-sequitor of immense and valueless proportions.

This is why Shakespeare said "the law is an arse".

Intersting thoughts FF and have to say I agree.

It is these MNC's and their marketing strategies that are mostly to blame for Thailand becoming a fat nation. In fact, within the top 5 of ASEAN countries.

It is bizarre, you see interview after interview with school students being asked what their favourite food is and not one I have seen has said tom yum goong, pad see ew or gai pad prik. No now it is pizza, french fries and burgers. Shame on you MNC's, not bad enough that you made my generation fat and the ones before, you are now not content until you have obesitised the whole world.

It's true that a lot of these bigger companies do tend to market aggressively sometimes but there should be some personal responsibility as well by adults for themselves and their children. I sometimes drink Coke of one brand or another but I don't get fat or lose my teeth because I don't do it very often but I have heard of people who drink 4 or 5 cans a day. That's obviously not good and those who do it must be stupid.

It's worth remembering that Thais use a lot of sugar and have done since before the arrival of McDonald''s ect.

[Bikkii]

I find big American corporations to be heavy-handed, asinine, and insular. One feed supplier in the US, a farm feed supplier, who had been McDonald's Feed since 1912 had to change their name from the restaraunt chain doing exactly the same thing that Starphucks is trying to do. The problem, hard to see from here, is this: A large company files court brief after court brief, demanding a defendent's response, until the little guy goes bankrupt paying his lawyer.

That's the harsh and stupid reality of civil cases filed in the US. It is an engineered system where companies can literally steamroll anyone they like. Now they try to impose their one-sided approach to destroying small businesses here... I hope the Thais use every aspect of Thainess...the case takes years to evaluate...evidence gets lost...witnesses can't be found....and no one pays squat but the foriegn invader.

Here is a great chance for the legal system we all criticize to protect their own, and help keep corporate America from getting a foothold in their financial space. The American conceptualization of legal justice is pathetically insane, and I hope the nations reject all this nonsense. This situation does not hurt or cost Starphucks a single cent in revenue. And the legal argument..this is Our Intellectul Property is equally stupid...because in any context where such property has no value equates to a non-sequitor of immense and valueless proportions.

This is why Shakespeare said "the law is an arse".

Intersting thoughts FF and have to say I agree.

It is these MNC's and their marketing strategies that are mostly to blame for Thailand becoming a fat nation. In fact, within the top 5 of ASEAN countries.

It is bizarre, you see interview after interview with school students being asked what their favourite food is and not one I have seen has said tom yum goong, pad see ew or gai pad prik. No now it is pizza, french fries and burgers. Shame on you MNC's, not bad enough that you made my generation fat and the ones before, you are now not content until you have obesitised the whole world.

It's true that a lot of these bigger companies do tend to market aggressively sometimes but there should be some personal responsibility as well by adults for themselves and their children. I sometimes drink Coke of one brand or another but I don't get fat or lose my teeth because I don't do it very often but I have heard of people who drink 4 or 5 cans a day. That's obviously not good and those who do it must be stupid.

It's worth remembering that Thais use a lot of sugar and have done since before the arrival of McDonald''s ect.

Yes true but young kids in evry country are easily manipulated by the marketing hype. That is what these companies are best at.

Since the westernisation of Thailand the obesity levels have gone through the roof. Of course industrialisation has a part to play in this with people's lives becoming less group orientated and time difficient. This is where the MNC's are better than the rest, they pull the temptation strings better, create needs that were once not there, brainwash people to develop new wants.

What has this to do with Starbucks? Not a lot really besides they are part of this MNC hierarchy and therefore I am very skeptical of anything they do or claim to be just.

[beautifulthailand99]

Maybe if Starbucks were a bit more transparent about paying their taxes they might have got a smidgeon more compassion from me (well actually no they wouldn't).

I haven't tried Starbung Coffee but if it's anything like the local grown and brewed Thai Coffee I regularly drink, they've got my vote, rather than that overpriced watery muck they sell at Starbucks.

Should anyone with a conscience still support Starbucks when they come with official guff like this?

Q: Why does Starbucks not pay tax in the UK?

A: Starbucks pays a range of taxes in the UK, but it is true that we have not paid a meaningful amount of corporation tax. Corporation tax is based on the profits a company makes. We have found making a profit in the UK difficult and therefore have not been in a position to pay much corporation tax. http://www.starbucks.co.uk/our-commitment

They have only paid 8.6m GBP corporation tax in the UK over 14 years and nothing in the last four years - despite sales of £400m last year. The Managing Director got a 90% pay rise - I wonder why. Creative Accounting 101.

Difficult to make a profit, my ass!

screw them the thieving corporate bullying batards