Bangkok: Starbucks demands arrests in IP case

[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.

And let's not forget the issue of double standards ... how would Thailand react to a foreign company using the Singha logo for a similar product...?

[tominbkk]

Good coffee has been around Thailand for a long time it just depends where you go and who you know as they have been growing coffee for a long time and many know how to make a good cup

True, but before the Starbucks phenomena it could be very difficult finding a real cup of coffee, if you were outside the city. The best you could usually get was some awful coffee that was hyper sweetened. Now everywhere there is a coffee hut within walking distance, with a real espresso machine.

Thanks, Starbucks!

[fab4]

"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,

Edited October 19, 2013 by fab4

[lovetotravel]

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.

Perfect example of consumerism. If they don't produce a product (or lifestyle) people like, they will go out of business. Obviously, plenty of people around the world like Starbucks.

I'm with you. It's OK coffee, but incredibly overpriced. But I find the same with pretty much any coffee I buy on the street. So I make my own. With beans I select, grind, brew with clean water, and serve in a proper coffee cup. I hate drinking good coffee out of a Styrofoam cup. Kinda like drinking champagne out of a paper cup.

[oldsailor35]

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.

[fab4]

"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,

"under 5 million GBP" should be 8.6 million GBP as in my original post - still indefensible.

Edited October 19, 2013 by fab4

[spidermike007]

More than likely nothing will come of this. The reality is that the police are fairly impotent here. Very few arrests are made. Even if they are made, very few convictions happen, in the courts, due to incompetent judges, and a very peculiar and dysfunctional legal system. And even if the court was to find this guy guilty, how would the judgment be enforced? If anything, something like this might highlight how ineffective the systems are here. If Starbucks thinks they are doing business in a country with a real rule of law, they are in for a rude awakening. And besides, does this cart even matter? Who cares? I understand that Starbucks has the right to pursue this. But, will anything come of it? I seriously doubt this guy will be punished in any meaningful way. After all, we see fines of 2,000 baht for assaults committed by jet ski guys with many witnesses. So, how is the general public going to take the legal system seriously, when nonsense like that happens every day?

[laolover88]

There is a BIG P in Mae Hong Son

[steven100]

I am totally against these rich International companies trying to bully monger Thailand about Copyrights.

As I have said before, a street sweeper in thailand may be able to go a purchase a copy rolex from a vendor who pays his staff worker and/or family to put food on the table.

In what way in hell would that situation ever effect the profits of Rolex. The small guy is never going to buy or even afford an original so I say keep up the copies !! go for it.

The Rebok, Polo, Addidas etc ... who employ cheap labour to manufacture there product are nothing but hippocrits ... & greedy pigs ... in my opinion.

[samran]

If many of the posters were victims of this blatant piece of IP infringement they wouldn't be happy, about time that IP infringement, copy right etc was enforced properly in this country.

Am with you there having been a victim of it myself.

However nothing is going to stop me paying out in their coffe flavoured milk which they try and pass off as coffee. It is <deleted>.

One thing to consider though is the bad PR Starbucks is going to get out of this. Nor are they going to be able to extract very much in terms of compensation from this poor bloke. If I was Starbucks, I'd play along and sponsor his cart and give him a few Starbucks things to sell with the cart, in exchange for a slight change in the design of the sign.

Then I'd publise it to show the world how frigging good we are.

Seems like the lawyers got to this one first though. They are going to be the only winners.

Edited October 19, 2013 by samran

[richard_smith237]

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.

I suspect they used their brains by not providing a free 'brand new fully painted coffee cart'... Imagine the follow-up... all any sundry with beaten-up knackered old coffee carts painting Starbucks (or similar) logo's on them... A chain of events has just been triggered with a galactically flawed attempted at publicity...

In this case I don't see Starbucks walking over the little guy... They are protecting the brand they have developed. Any and every company with a brand to protect do the same thing... Nike, Adidas, Gucci, LV, Moet etc.. they all protect their brands through Intellectual Property Laws - this is no different from the knock off handbags, knock off Nike Trainers, Fake Watches etc... As many companies do (but not so readily publicised) companies through IP lawyers and the Police will raid warehouses of counterfeit stock and draw charges against the owners.

This story has very little to do with whether or not people like Starbucks coffee, disagree with the taxes paid or support smaller businesses.

This story is simply about IP infringement - There is very little doubt that these two brothers copied the Starbucks brand. They were warned and ignored the warnings. They are now facing charges. There is very little Starbucks can do other than ignore these infringements on their brand. However any smart company will attempt to prevent this from happening... before these issues are more than just the 'thin end of the wedge'...

Starbucks have made their stance clear for anyone else who wishes to infringe on their brand regardless of what is thought of their coffee.

[3SoiDogNight]

Funny how Starbucks is getting a taste of their own medicine. This is EXACTLY what they've done all over the United States and have drove many small family owned coffee shops out of business.

In San Francisco where I used to live, there is a small family owned bakery/coffee shop called Creighton's. It's been there for years and they have a blue awning with their logo above their storefront. Well Starbucks set up shop right next door and put up a BLUE awning with their logo above their storefront!

Every Starbucks in the world has a GREEN awning or green sign, except that location.

It's blatantly obvious what's going on there.

I want to find this push-cart coffee brand and buy a few cups from them and wish them well!

Starbung probably taste better too!

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.

I'm American and I HATE Starbucks! Especially the crap they sale here in Thailand and I'm sure most Americans here in Thailand would agree that the junk they call coffee taste awful. Most of the customers here in Thailand are HiSo Thais and other Asian tourist. You wont find many Americans in a Starbucks here in Thailand.

I do agree with you that Starbucks need to get over themselves and extract their head from their collective corporate arse.

[lovetotravel]

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.

I suspect they used their brains by not providing a free 'brand new fully painted coffee cart'... Imagine the follow-up... all any sundry with beaten-up knackered old coffee carts painting Starbucks (or similar) logo's on them... A chain of events has just been triggered with a galactically flawed attempted at publicity...

In this case I don't see Starbucks walking over the little guy... They are protecting the brand they have developed. Any and every company with a brand to protect do the same thing... Nike, Adidas, Gucci, LV, Moet etc.. they all protect their brands through Intellectual Property Laws - this is no different from the knock off handbags, knock off Nike Trainers, Fake Watches etc... As many companies do (but not so readily publicised) companies through IP lawyers and the Police will raid warehouses of counterfeit stock and draw charges against the owners.

This story has very little to do with whether or not people like Starbucks coffee, disagree with the taxes paid or support smaller businesses.

This story is simply about IP infringement - There is very little doubt that these two brothers copied the Starbucks brand. They were warned and ignored the warnings. They are now facing charges. There is very little Starbucks can do other than ignore these infringements on their brand. However any smart company will attempt to prevent this from happening... before these issues are more than just the 'thin end of the wedge'...

Starbucks have made their stance clear for anyone else who wishes to infringe on their brand regardless of what is thought of their coffee.

Well put. The guy claims he's doing nothing wrong. The law says otherwise. If Starbucks let's this go do it, then thousands more will do it, and they have lost their brand, which they have worked hard to create. Like it or not, that's the reality. And obviously, many like the brand.

Problem with knockoffs is you really don't know the quality you are getting. My knockoff Rolex lasted 2 months. My knockoff Nikes lasted even less. And as I have said before, what really scares me are knock off drugs. When I need an antibiotic, I want to know I'm getting something that will work. Not a cheap knockoff made in a plant in India.

I wish some of you guys would be in a similar position. Owning a business and then having somebody open up shop right next door with the same name, product and theme. I think your responses here would be totally different.

[ratcatcher]

1. edited for brevity

In San Francisco where I used to live, there is a small family owned bakery/coffee shop called Creighton's. It's been there for years and they have a blue awning with their logo above their storefront. Well Starbucks set up shop right next door and put up a BLUE awning with their logo above their storefront!

Every Starbucks in the world has a GREEN awning or green sign, except that location.

It's blatantly obvious what's going on there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. edited for brevity.

I wish some of you guys would be in a similar position. Owning a business and then having somebody open up shop right next door with the same name, product and theme. I think your responses here would be totally different.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem Starbucks trod on the toes of Creighton's in San Francisco by blatantly copying the blue colored awning.

What's good for the goose etc.............

[lovetotravel]

1. edited for brevity

In San Francisco where I used to live, there is a small family owned bakery/coffee shop called Creighton's. It's been there for years and they have a blue awning with their logo above their storefront. Well Starbucks set up shop right next door and put up a BLUE awning with their logo above their storefront!

Every Starbucks in the world has a GREEN awning or green sign, except that location.

It's blatantly obvious what's going on there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. edited for brevity.

I wish some of you guys would be in a similar position. Owning a business and then having somebody open up shop right next door with the same name, product and theme. I think your responses here would be totally different.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem Starbucks trod on the toes of Creighton's in San Francisco by blatantly copying the blue colored awning.

What's good for the goose etc.............

Agreed, not good. But not illegal. It would have been if they have used Creighton's logo on the awing, with just small changes. Like "Creightonbucks" or something like that. Competition isn't always nice, but it does need to be legal. Every business in the world (well, mostly) has competitors who are doing what they can to overtake them or put them out of business. Like it or hate it.

[craigt3365]

One post violating forum rules has been removed from view. Please show respect to other members.

[sunshine51]

Corporate Greed. How much is enough? Starbucks...Nestle...they're all the same.

Nestle took an African country to court because of a reneg by the country

concerning raw coffee bean price...and Nestle WON! A company sued a nation

and won...what's next? Just don't buy or patronise Starbucks or Nestle products

and tell everybody you know about their shit practices & products...have those

folks spread the word too. Probably won't do much good but worth a try anyway.

[Baerboxer]

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.

It's all about the total product. Starbucks market a product - you get a nice surrounding (?), lots of alternative beverages and super duper cakes and munchies, wifi access, and can sit in the company of attractive young Thai ladies taking a break from shopping and busy messaging on their iPhones or pads, countless students doing their assignments, and farang business types working furiously on their notebooks or talking impressively on their blue tooth. You can watch people make drinks last ludicrous long periods of time so they can hog these wonderful amenities - and all for a small premium included in the competitive price structure of their excellent selection.

Or, you can buy a decent beverage from the many good quality vendors, at a fraction of the price, but without all the trimmings.

The choice is yours!

[soomak]

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.

[Emdog]

1. This is not about whether Starbucks makes good coffee or not. That is not what is in dispute

2. This is not about whether Starbucks pays taxes in UK (that is a bit of a stretch...)

3. This is not about if Starbucks wants to minimize competition (all companies would love to be sole source. That's capitalism).

3a. This is not about if Starbucks is a big company or little. That does not matter.

4. This is about Starbucks protecting it's logo and brand image, which is reasonable. Period. Starbung didn't happen by chance, it was deliberate attempt to steal some of Starbuck's good will (I know some of you can't imagine some like Starbucks and the whole Starbucks experience. Think Apple and how they get away with charging so much more. Image is everything, especially in Thailand).

5. As long as we have a capitalist form of economy, businesses will try to protect their source of income. They are in business to make money, get it? Selling coffee etc is just a means to do that. If they could make more money selling inflatable dolls, they would do that.

[hawker9000]

"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,

And what part of "tax being passed along to customers" don't YOU understand? Sheesh. PS Revenues or sales do not equal profits. And businesses pay other taxes & fees besides the corporate tax on profits (levied/charged by govts whether there's any profit or not!), not to mention other operating expenses, like maybe, oh, I don't know,.... SALARIES(!). Also, prior year losses/carryover. People hear "sales of..." and don't even want to hear the rest of the story - and probably wouldn't comprehend much even if they did). You can always tell when you're dealing with hysterical "anti-korpurashen" wingnuts who just see or hear about lots of money & figure they and their overspending, deficit-ridden, tax-addicted, bloated govts simply MUST be entitled to a slice as a matter of natural law. Edited October 19, 2013 by hawker9000

[phitsanulokjohn]

Don't have a problem with the Thai's,after all everything is a copy here.

[lovetotravel]

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.

It's all about the total product. Starbucks market a product - you get a nice surrounding (?), lots of alternative beverages and super duper cakes and munchies, wifi access, and can sit in the company of attractive young Thai ladies taking a break from shopping and busy messaging on their iPhones or pads, countless students doing their assignments, and farang business types working furiously on their notebooks or talking impressively on their blue tooth. You can watch people make drinks last ludicrous long periods of time so they can hog these wonderful amenities - and all for a small premium included in the competitive price structure of their excellent selection.

Or, you can buy a decent beverage from the many good quality vendors, at a fraction of the price, but without all the trimmings.

The choice is yours!

Excellent point. Buy it off a cart, sit on the curb and not have wifi. Seriously, it is a total package, not just a cup of coffee. I am not a customer, due to their high prices, but I have had their coffees. Some are pretty darn good. It's an image thing in a big way. Maybe like having to dirve a Benz vs. a nice Honda?

Edited October 19, 2013 by lovetotravel

[techboy]

Isn't imitation considered the highest form of flattery?

Starbucks the U.S. coffee chain should pay the men THB.300,000 plus interest for the publicity they have generated for Starbucks.

Just check out the business ethics of Starbucks, indeed somewhat lacking in ethics.

"Isn't imitation considered the highest form of flattery?" No. It is called patent infringement.

"Just check out the business ethics of Starbucks, indeed somewhat lacking in ethics." I have never seen anything but unverifiable rumors and accusations on the internet.

[bigbamboo]

There is a BIG P in Mae Hong Son

So what. There's a Big C in Dubai.

[techboy]

Starbucks should not waste money on legal action against something as goofball as this. They would be better off investing in a better range and availability of country specific souvenirs in the shops.

[techboy]

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.

You are so ignorant. Take your own advice and extract your head before you asphyxiate. Starbucks is big worldwide- Their frigging stock is going through the roof with increasing popularity! Mmm. This Kenya brew that I am drinking at the moment packs a real kick.

PS. The Kenya brew also has aphrodisiacal effects.

[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.

Edited October 19, 2013 by monkeycountry

[bigbamboo]

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!

Edited October 19, 2013 by bigbamboo

[Benmart]

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.

What Americans are you referring too? I certainly don't rave about their product and it doesn't degrease car engines either. Not enough detergent in their concoctions. Their coffee is over-priced, over-rated and over here.

By the way, using the broad brush approach when refering to national groups is subject to a credibility check of the poster IMO.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Benmart