Bangkok: Starbucks demands arrests in IP case

[bigbamboo]

What idiot would confuse the two?

As long as someone isn't fooled into thinking they are getting something they're not there is no problem.

Anyone who doesn't know how to read English or is not very observant and there are millions. Let's say, for argument, that you created something and made a logo for it. Your product is not very good but you have spent millions to convince a segment of society that you are the ultimate status symbol. (Many high-end labels do this) Why did these brothers make their logo so similar to Starbucks? They want a free ride on all the money spent by Starbuck to fool people into thinking their coffee was the best. How hard would it have been for the brothers to come up with an original logo? If the brothers' coffee is better, wouldn't they beat Starbucks in the marketplace? No, because it take millions to fool people as much as Starbucks has. Starbucks spent the money and deserve the benefits: the brothers didn't spend the money and don't deserve to benefit from someone else's investment.

Exactly. It's so obviously a clever rip off. Look at all those half opened evaporated milk cans and old buckets on show too.... just like you'd see at Starbucks.

[fab4]

how can a company who did pay less than 2% tax of their turnover to the society ask a goverment institution for help?

Tell the company´s like Apple, Starbucks, VW, and so on, START PAYING TAX where you earn your money and then you can expact help from institution who are paid my tax money.

may be George Lukas should take them to court also for copying his brand

Do you pay taxes you don't owe? If you have a problem with certain companies not paying what you think is their fair share, get your government to change the tax laws or, if you think those companies are cheating on their taxes, lobby to have the tax laws enforced more stringently.

In my experience, governments are not shy about going after all the taxes they can and BTW George Lukas? is a big boy and he will sue if he wants to. Why do you want George Lukas to fight your battles for you?

"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.

[Blindside]

I once bought coffee from a Starbucks thinking it was a Starbung franchise.

Hilarious!

Up yo$*s Starbucks!

Will be in BKK next week going to drink a cuppa Starbung!!

Edited October 18, 2013 by Blindside

[HerbalEd]

While it may seem petty for SB to go after such a small, insignificant business, they do it for a purpose. If they knowingly don't go after anyone who copies their trademark, others can use that as evidence in a court to demonstrate that SB did not protect their trademark. If you don't defend your trademark you can indeed lose it.

I have to laugh at those who complain so hard about SB's prices. No one is forcing you to buy it.

[lovetotravel]

This is a bigger problem than just coffee. Hope none of you get the fake drugs that are out there: Coffee is one thing, prescription drugs is an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, they are tied together with the same lack of legal enforcement. Which can prove to be deadly::

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/633295-transnational-organised-crime-flows-generate-90-billion-annually-unodc/#entry6308406

"Between one-third to 90 per cent of anti-malarial drugs tested in Southeast Asia are fraudulent: They do not contain what they say they do. Sub-standard drugs have two serious public health consequences: One: people get sicker or die; Two: drug-resistant strains can develop - as we now see with anti-malarials - and cause a global health threat," said Jeremy Douglas, UNODC Regional Representative, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

[caughtintheact]

over charging is when you sell some thing for more than it is worth.

No, you would be better off trying to claim that overcharginbg is when you charge more than someone is willing to pay.

Butr as another poster put it, overcharging is really when you are told one price but then the price is increased without yuour consent, i.e., after you drink the coffee you are billed more than the menu price. "Worth" is an individual perception. However, the market perception is that people are willing to pay the price at Starbucks, and that is why Starbucks is still in business, and still profitablet.

But I do not go there either. :)

[rametindallas]

What idiot would confuse the two?

As long as someone isn't fooled into thinking they are getting something they're not there is no problem.

Anyone who doesn't know how to read English or is not very observant and there are millions. Let's say, for argument, that you created something and made a logo for it. Your product is not very good but you have spent millions to convince a segment of society that you are the ultimate status symbol. (Many high-end labels do this) Why did these brothers make their logo so similar to Starbucks? They want a free ride on all the money spent by Starbuck to fool people into thinking their coffee was the best. How hard would it have been for the brothers to come up with an original logo? If the brothers' coffee is better, wouldn't they beat Starbucks in the marketplace? No, because it take millions to fool people as much as Starbucks has. Starbucks spent the money and deserve the benefits: the brothers didn't spend the money and don't deserve to benefit from someone else's investment.

Exactly. It's so obviously a clever rip off. Look at all those half opened evaporated milk cans and old buckets on show too.... just like you'd see at Starbucks.

Two points: I would venture to guess that there are unsophisticated Thais who wouldn't know the difference. Once you let even one person infringe on your trademark, you must let everyone infringe on your trademark; no matter how large the later infringer is. If you give up your rights to one, you must then give up your rights to all; no selective enforcement, please.

What part of trademark infringement do you have a problem with or do you want to personally pick and choose who is allowed and who is not. I guess we should appoint you World Czar of Trademark Infringement and let you, and not the courts, decide.

[rametindallas]

how can a company who did pay less than 2% tax of their turnover to the society ask a goverment institution for help?

Tell the company´s like Apple, Starbucks, VW, and so on, START PAYING TAX where you earn your money and then you can expact help from institution who are paid my tax money.

may be George Lukas should take them to court also for copying his brand

Do you pay taxes you don't owe? If you have a problem with certain companies not paying what you think is their fair share, get your government to change the tax laws or, if you think those companies are cheating on their taxes, lobby to have the tax laws enforced more stringently.

In my experience, governments are not shy about going after all the taxes they can and BTW George Lukas? is a big boy and he will sue if he wants to. Why do you want George Lukas to fight your battles for you?

"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.

[vegasphl]

Au Bon Pain has better coffee than all others IMHO.

[thairookie]

Coffee beans imports are subject to a 95% tariff in Thailand. I'm not sure if StarBucks use imported beans or local beans.

Does ILLY taste different in Thailand ? I'm not referring to those tin cans that you can buy from TOPS or The Mall. I'm referring to the coffee chains with the ILLY logo.

[retarius]

I will never patronise Starbucks again. This is corporate abuse of a poor guy trying to feed his family. Nobody on earth would confuse his with a Starbucks store. Starbucks really sucks, overpriced weak cOffee and crap food.

[anon8]

Au Bon Pain has better coffee than all others IMHO.

at least latte in Au Bons blows really hard

[MILT]

Starbucks controls pert near all the coffee in the Mae Hong Song area. If they could they would buy up every bean in Thailand.

[doontp]

Its clearly a Copy Right infringement - It's obvious that the Coffee cart owners set out from the offset to use the Starbucks brand to their own advantage. Yes, its a bit of a David & Goliath situation, however, that doesn't detract from the fact that this is Copying and against IP laws.

Its unfortunate for the owners that they have been the ones chose by Starbucks when there are so many others. This issue has very little to do with money, it has everything to do with protecting their brand. Starbucks are drawing a line in the sand.

They are telling other business owners: It's Damrong to Copy someone else's brand. Get off your Damras'ses and create your own brand...

get real........the world revolves around money and control. protecting their brand is protecting their money.

[JimsKnight]

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

Indeed. I think Starbucks need to realize what the term 'free enterprise' means and stop attacking it like all the other corporations out there do.

[arco27]

I think Starbucks (normally I rplace the b with an f) should be taken to court for selling brown water as coffee

[Trouble]

Point is Starbucks put out a cease-and-desist letter and cart vendor went right ahead operating his business. He could kept the same name and simply have changed the logo a little and there would not have been any problems. Rather than discussing the merits of the matter posters have simply chosen once again to go off in whatever direction the choose. Whether you like Starbuck coffee is really not the point. Whether you like their business model is not the point. They seem to be running a successful business. I think part of the price is the fact they give you a place to sit for hours, chat, use the internet, etc. Seems to work. Seems to me Au Bon Pain at various locations in Bangkok uses the same model. What do you expect for all that, a 10 cent cup of coffee?

[noitom]

The logo clearly looks like a rip off. On top of that, the street vendor is pushing it in Starbucks' face with cups with the logo after a year of warnings. Now the vendor is attempting to extort 3 million baht from Starbucks to "purchase" his business is an or else threat. Guess who is going to win?

[MaxYakov]

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.

[CPT]

I don't quite understand the responses here. Rabble rabble... big American corporation evil... grunt... don't like their product... rabble rabble... off with their heads. Then the typical socialist complaint: Hey, they have money! Mommy, make them share (whining). And lets throw in some good ol' anti-Americanism to round it out.

It doesn't matter if the street cart vendors are the "little guys" or not. They broke the law to the detriment of an entity that has the resources to pursue them and they were already ordered by a court to change their logo so this latest turn of events isn't exactly a surprise. With all the complaints on this forum about lawlessness in Thailand it is easy to be led to the false conclusion that posters here actually advocate the enforcement of laws. Turns out they are rather selective as to which laws they believe should be enforced and who should be subject to them... sounds like a familiar complaint about Thailand turned on it's head.

[MaxYakov]

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!

I'm not a fan of Starbucks either. But nor am I a fan of high national taxes, especially when they verge on confiscatory by the state to the tune of nearly 40%:

"In the fiscal year 2007-08, total government revenue was 39.2 per cent of GDP with net taxes and National Insurance contributions standing at 36.9 per cent of GDP^[ —approximately £600 billion (using 2008 nominal GDP measured in dollars, and converting using 2009 conversion rate."

Taxation in the United Kingdom (Wiki)

The UK stands at either 15th or 21st highest ranking country as Taxes as a percentage of GDP (Wiki)

Edited October 19, 2013 by MaxYakov

[ianf]

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

Your option whether to be a customer or not. For my part, rather than pay 170 baht for a soya iced choco, I just go to a local coffee bar and pay 45! Meanwhile, so many people rip off successful logos here, with a few coffee bars trying to imitate Starbucks, that I say "Good luck to Starbucks". If anyone wants to create a brand, do so. Don't steal other people's brands which you see so often in Thailand.

Edited October 19, 2013 by ianf

[ianf]

I will never patronise Starbucks again. This is corporate abuse of a poor guy trying to feed his family. Nobody on earth would confuse his with a Starbucks store. Starbucks really sucks, overpriced weak cOffee and crap food.

Utter rubbish. This is about a guy with a coffee cart taking the piss out of the law. Meanwhile, yes, Starbucks use local grown coffee as there is now a lot grown in Thailand. They go to the grower and buy their whole harvest.

[Kabayo66]

Although I generally prefer to take the side of the underdog, in this case the cart owners are clearly in the wrong. The attempt, however feeble, to make more money by imitating an international brand's trademark is illegal and Damrong. Any Damras with any sense should know that if their coffee is good, they will sell it very easily without copying any existing trademarks. Starbucks has a legal right to defend their trademark, and if they don't, there will certainly be many more people trying this sort of illegal leeching. I don't drink coffee, and even if I did, Starbucks is very expensive. But they should not be seen as a big business bullying the little guys. It's a matter of self-defense. Sure, they're throwing the book at these two, but merely slapping their hands won't teach anyone right from wrong. Tough action is necessary to deter future copyright infringements.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Kabayo66

[Sealbash]

The rich can't even wait to get richer, ripping the poor men's shirt of for the sacrifice, law has to be law, they will do much better taking this opportunity how much their logos are appreciated around the globe but most CEO are suckers and only dumb followers of selfmade rules to steal and get higher in their company!

Whatever you may think of the product, Starbucks has a very successful business model.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[kurnell]

Another no class american company

If you are gonna charge american prices you should pay the american wages to the employees

5 bucks for a coffee and 5 bucks for a muffin ... no thanks

I understand.......too expensive for you chaps. That's a good thing. Starbucks keeps out the riff raff. It's no different than choosing to eat at MCD's or the Banyan Tree. You get what you pay for. You Starbuck hating wanke_rs PLEASE do go somewhere else for coffee. Stay outta my Starbucks.

Starbucks= good coffee, good atmosphere, priced right and keeping out the backpackers, wanke_rs, beggers, etc. In fact I would like to see them raise the prices a bit more.

The rest of you go drink coffee with the monkeys and hooligans, PLEASE stay out of Starbucks where you all can't afford it anyway.

Starbucks should take those Thai monkey Damrongs to task. I hope justice is done and they are thrown in jail. Then they can really expand their Bunghole business!!! LOL

Starbucks doesn't keep the misers away who sit at their tables without buying anything or alternatively buying a drink and nursing it for hours while they mince on their laptop using the free wifi.

[stickylies]

I have to laugh at those who complain so hard about SB's prices. No one is forcing you to buy it.

you assume people have free will. well they don't.

people are forced (to consume corporate stuff/brands) except that they don't know it...

[mochafan]

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.

And why are they are so popular then? I don't see any Australian businesses doing as well, do you?

[F4UCorsair]

I'll take a coffee from those little coffee carts in preference to Starbucks........anytime!! B15 for a great coffee, take in the streetscape whilst sipping, and enjoy life. $5.00 for a Starbucks coffee just doesn't do it for me. If it was exceptional coffee, I'd pay the price, but it's just ordinary.

[GeorgeO]

Its clearly a Copy Right infringement - It's obvious that the Coffee cart owners set out from the offset to use the Starbucks brand to their own advantage. Yes, its a bit of a David & Goliath situation, however, that doesn't detract from the fact that this is Copying and against IP laws.

Its unfortunate for the owners that they have been the ones chose by Starbucks when there are so many others. This issue has very little to do with money, it has everything to do with protecting their brand. Starbucks are drawing a line in the sand.

They are telling other business owners: It's Damrong to Copy someone else's brand. Get off your Damras'ses and create your own brand...

I have to agree with you Richard, essentially because this is not about Starbucks, it's about business attitude in Thailand.

Despite the fact that I wouldn't be seen dead in a Starbucks "coffee" shop, and the fact that they are guilty of tax evasion (in huge amounts) in the UK, there has to be a start point towards bringing to an end such infringements by Thai business owners who couldn't care less what brand they steal from whoever. These brothers, like virtually all businesses in Thailand, believe that they can do what they want with impunity.

The Hitler chicken outlets were a total disgrace, and those who started that particular fiasco should have been made to pay dearly for besmirching the name of KFC, although again, that's another place you would never find me frequenting because I prefer "real" food.

My point is, we have to get past the point where a major company, such as Chang, can simply take over the manufacturing processes of a major foreign company, such as Carlsberg, leading to them making multi-millions of dollars, and then getting off scott free.

Since the legal system here is largely dependent on precedent cases, if there is an appropriate outcome in this one, then we should start to see a move towards enlightening Thai businesses to be very careful in what they decide to steal from foreign companies.