Bangkok's "Starbung" coffee vendor defies multinational

[Fullstop]

Instead of the predominant fake-copy-fake; Perhaps Thailand should instead rely on the intellectual and inventive prowess of the Thai people.

Thailand. Keep copying!

[Traveler19491]

As in most situations, there are two sides to this story. I doubt seriously that anyone with more than eight functioning brain cells would disagree that this gentleman's logo does, indeed, bear a striking resemblance to Starbucks internationally recognizable trademark. And Starbucks does have a legal right to protect their property. However, the serious risk that Starbucks runs is in alienating their customer base by being perceived as "beating up" on some very low level street vendor, who poses precisely zero threat to their market share. It is not very likely that anyone stopping at the "Starbung" cart for a cup of coffee mistakes his coffee for that of his better known competitor. Were the legal and marketing teams at Starbucks possessed of any sense of proportion, or for that matter, any sense of marketing savvy, they would either ignore the mosquito in the room, or they would use his presence as an opportunity to poke fun at themselves by coming up with a humorous advertisement pointing directly at the situation, thereby turning this to their advantage. But such is the short sightedness of multinational corporations. And it's also highly unlikely that I'll ever again part with any of my personal baht to the profit of Starbucks.

[ianf]

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

Why?

[Fullstop]

As in most situations, there are two sides to this story. I doubt seriously that anyone with more than eight functioning brain cells would disagree that this gentleman's logo does, indeed, bear a striking resemblance to Starbucks internationally recognizable trademark. And Starbucks does have a legal right to protect their property. However, the serious risk that Starbucks runs is in alienating their customer base by being perceived as "beating up" on some very low level street vendor, who poses precisely zero threat to their market share. It is not very likely that anyone stopping at the "Starbung" cart for a cup of coffee mistakes his coffee for that of his better known competitor. Were the legal and marketing teams at Starbucks possessed of any sense of proportion, or for that matter, any sense of marketing savvy, they would either ignore the mosquito in the room, or they would use his presence as an opportunity to poke fun at themselves by coming up with a humorous advertisement pointing directly at the situation, thereby turning this to their advantage. But such is the short sightedness of multinational corporations. And it's also highly unlikely that I'll ever again part with any of my personal baht to the profit of Starbucks.

So OK, They let this guy off the hook and allow him to use his ripped off logo. How about the next one? Yeah ... let him go too. And the next? and the next? and the next?

WHoah!!!!!!

Get it now?

[apalink_thailand]

He knows he copied Starbucks. We know he copied Starbucks. Everyone knows he copies Starbucks.

Telling fibs about his inspiration for the logo evaporated any sympathy I felt for him..... and I really loathe Starbucks.

He should have played the sympathy card himself. Saying how the big nasty coffee corporation (which Starbucks is) has stolen his business and so he was just trying to get a little back to feed his family.

Indeed. Who uses muslim inspired ideas to sell coffee? Isn't that blasphemous?

Only if there is Irish whisky in the coffee.

[richard10365]

If you are going to steal someone's image, the best place to do it is in Thailand. However, in the eyes of the legal community, if this goes to court, he will probably end up in jail. He is clearly breaking the law...but look at Est Cola. If they can steal Pepsi's image, why can't this man steal Starbucks?

[apalink_thailand]

I think he should offer free wifi to English teachers so he can gain some more sympathy votes from the TV gallery.

[Fullstop]

Anyway ... he's not a 'real' Muslim. He copied his religion from the Arabs.

[apalink_thailand]

As in most situations, there are two sides to this story. I doubt seriously that anyone with more than eight functioning brain cells would disagree that this gentleman's logo does, indeed, bear a striking resemblance to Starbucks internationally recognizable trademark. And Starbucks does have a legal right to protect their property. However, the serious risk that Starbucks runs is in alienating their customer base by being perceived as "beating up" on some very low level street vendor, who poses precisely zero threat to their market share. It is not very likely that anyone stopping at the "Starbung" cart for a cup of coffee mistakes his coffee for that of his better known competitor. Were the legal and marketing teams at Starbucks possessed of any sense of proportion, or for that matter, any sense of marketing savvy, they would either ignore the mosquito in the room, or they would use his presence as an opportunity to poke fun at themselves by coming up with a humorous advertisement pointing directly at the situation, thereby turning this to their advantage. But such is the short sightedness of multinational corporations. And it's also highly unlikely that I'll ever again part with any of my personal baht to the profit of Starbucks.

So OK, They let this guy off the hook and allow him to use his ripped off logo. How about the next one? Yeah ... let him go too. And the next? and the next? and the next?

WHoah!!!!!!

Get it now?

I tried to open up a chain of fast food restaurants called "McShits" once and guess what? Lawyers from McDonalds all over me like poop on stink. Evil corporations. May they burn in hell !

[indyuk]

Starbucks is making a PR mistake here.

I think they are within their rights. Try opening a S&B next to an S&P. The lawyers and full brunt of the Thai law would be on you in hours. They would probably burn your restaurant down.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

However he is Thai and this is his country. I imagine that as dates for court hearings approach he'll just disappear for a while. At every new court date he'll likely repeat the procedure.

If he is convicted in his absence he'll probably offer the 50 Baht a month to the plaintiff because the plaintiff has destroyed his life and he has no money and nowhere to live.

This could cost Starbucks a lot of money

[Halion]

Most commenters on various news sites fail to understand the fundamental differences between "copyright" and "trademark". The laws regarding the two are not the same.

In this case Starbucks is protecting a trademark. If they do not, and let everyone copy them, then eventually they may lose the right to protect it, as a court might say something like "well, you guys have let everyone copy your logo for the last 20 years. If you cared about your logo, you should have done something earlier, now it is too late - you lose".

Starbucks is obviously not concerned about Starbung, but they are concerned about their logo, and later it may not be a small street stall, but a proper chain of coffee shops opening up with a similar logo who can actually compete with Starbucks.

So in short, this case may or may not be good for Starbucks' reputation, personally I do not think it matters whatsoever, and obviously neither does Starbucks. However, Starbucks is not fighting this case to protect their reputation or to avoid competition from Starbung, they are protecting their trademark - and that is worth alot to most multinationals.

Absolutely correct and although it may seem to many as a storm in a tea cup it is something that simply has to be done especially in such a culture as this that feels they have the right to run fast and loose with the rights of others. Starbucks did approach this vendor and request that he cease and desist otherwise they would be forced to take action to protect their registered trademark. I have little love for Starbucks however, I applaud this action as it is the principle that is at stake as well as an internationally recognized trademark.

[apalink_thailand]

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

Why?

Because everyone knows that if a boycott is set up on Facebook, then kids with cancer will receive money for LIKES and trees will be planted by the millions, WORLDWIDE !!! Duh !

[Fullstop]

This thread would have been so much better if it was a brothel using the logo. They'd only have to change one letter and change the word "Coffee" to "Coitus"

Edited October 23, 2013 by Fullstop

[Baloo22]

As in most situations, there are two sides to this story. I doubt seriously that anyone with more than eight functioning brain cells would disagree that this gentleman's logo does, indeed, bear a striking resemblance to Starbucks internationally recognizable trademark. And Starbucks does have a legal right to protect their property. However, the serious risk that Starbucks runs is in alienating their customer base by being perceived as "beating up" on some very low level street vendor, who poses precisely zero threat to their market share. It is not very likely that anyone stopping at the "Starbung" cart for a cup of coffee mistakes his coffee for that of his better known competitor. Were the legal and marketing teams at Starbucks possessed of any sense of proportion, or for that matter, any sense of marketing savvy, they would either ignore the mosquito in the room, or they would use his presence as an opportunity to poke fun at themselves by coming up with a humorous advertisement pointing directly at the situation, thereby turning this to their advantage. But such is the short sightedness of multinational corporations. And it's also highly unlikely that I'll ever again part with any of my personal baht to the profit of Starbucks.

And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks does go into a courtroom it will be "Well, you let all these other people use your logo!" Starbucks does not just have a legal right to protect their property (logo), they have a responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that the "legal and marketing teams" at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you do.

How many times does this need to be explained ??? Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the other Starbucks thread.

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> ...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>

[Prbkk]

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

[samran]

The logo is indeed rather starbucks like and any muslim influence to my eye rests on the fact that the bloke in the middle of the logo must be the prophet Mohammad smoking a bong.

Having said that, it is clear Mr Bung is not trying to copy star bucks here, otherwise he's be urinating into a cup and selling it for $6 a pop.

[LuckyLew]

Just amazing the coincidence of how these two logos are the same size - color - shape - lettering....don't drink coffee so don't have a dog in this fight but if I had to sit on a jury the defiant Muslim would have to do a lot better than that.....

What does "Muslim" have to do with anything?

[Baloo22]

The logo is indeed rather starbucks like and any muslim influence to my eye rests on the fact that the bloke in the middle of the logo must be the prophet Mohammad smoking a bong.

Having said that, it is clear Mr Bung is not trying to copy star bucks here, otherwise he's be urinating into a cup and selling it for $6 a pop.

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling poor products that nobody wanted to buy.

All the evidence points to the obvious fact that they know much more about quality coffee and much more about delivering quality products to customers than you. I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company;

They didn't take advice from you!

[Bikkii]

The logo is indeed rather starbucks like and any muslim influence to my eye rests on the fact that the bloke in the middle of the logo must be the prophet Mohammad smoking a bong.

Having said that, it is clear Mr Bung is not trying to copy star bucks here, otherwise he's be urinating into a cup and selling it for $6 a pop.

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling poor products that nobody wanted to buy.

All the evidence points to the obvious fact that they know much more about quality coffee and much more about delivering quality products to customers than you. I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company;

They didn't take advice from you!

Are you claiming that the coffee and food are quality??

Shame on you. Now go and wash your mouth out with soap before you say anything else as ridiculous as that!

[dundee48]

Just amazing the coincidence of how these two logos are the same size - color - shape - lettering....don't drink coffee so don't have a dog in this fight but if I had to sit on a jury the defiant Muslim would have to do a lot better than that.....

What does "Muslim" have to do with anything?

Re-read the O.P. The little man has played the `Muslim`card against the big bad multi-national.

[samran]

@Baloo22

All your post proves is there are plenty of people in the world with bad enough taste to shell out dosh for crap coffee.

I've got no problem with the capitalist aspect of it. I wholeheartedly support their strategy and they are to be commended for the marketing savvy.

But let's not pretend they are actually serving a quality coffee product here. They aren't.

[rametindallas]

I hate Starbucks and this kind of corporate bullying but I must admit, right is right here. The Starbung logo is so similar to the Starbucks one. And it's not as if they just sued him. They gave him a chance to remove the logo first but some people are just too stubborn. I guess this fella is going to go bankrupt.

Then he'll have a set since he's morally bankrupt already.

[metisdead]

Profane and inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[Baloo22]

The logo is indeed rather starbucks like and any muslim influence to my eye rests on the fact that the bloke in the middle of the logo must be the prophet Mohammad smoking a bong.

Having said that, it is clear Mr Bung is not trying to copy star bucks here, otherwise he's be urinating into a cup and selling it for $6 a pop.

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling poor products that nobody wanted to buy.

All the evidence points to the obvious fact that they know much more about quality coffee and much more about delivering quality products to customers than you. I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company;

They didn't take advice from you!

Are you claiming that the coffee and food are quality?? Shame on you. Now go and wash your mouth out with soap before you say anything else as ridiculous as that!

You are simply demonstrating that you are one more person who knows much less about coffee and customer service than the company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. You are the one pegging the ThaiVisa "Ridiculous" meter!

[parallaxtech]

He should get a lawyer to draw up incorporation papers showing that his father started the business in 1970 (Starbucks opened in 1971) and then sue SB for copying him.

[rametindallas]

He knows he copied Starbucks. We know he copied Starbucks. Everyone knows he copies Starbucks.

Telling fibs about his inspiration for the logo evaporated any sympathy I felt for him..... and I really loathe Starbucks.

He should have played the sympathy card himself. Saying how the big nasty coffee corporation (which Starbucks is) has stolen his business and so he was just trying to get a little back to feed his family.

Copying is a difficult concept, as anyone who even has a passing acquaintance with copyright and patent issues. And large companies are known to copy others, infringe on copyright and patents. But as they have the big bucks, they can outspend the small guy in money for lawyers and take the case to appeal after appeal until the opposition's money runs out. Do you think that large companies never "told fibs" about where the inspiration for either their logos or their software came from?

But here is something to think about: Imagine the situation was reversed and Starbucks had copied the local coffee vendor. Do you think he would have any real redress? He would not be able to afford to defend himself.

Do you believe that everything about Starbucks was invented by that company and its contractors, that they never copied or "got inspiration" from some other source?

If your answer is no, do you therefore believe that there is justice in such a system where the big guys can copy as much as they want and the small guys cannot and are unable to get redress?

So, in your world, if perfect justice can't be achieved, then anarchy reigns; no one get justice if everyone can't get justice? BTW you never mentioned 'Trademark' in your post. You wrote about Patents and Copyrights, but they have nothing to do with this case. Pretty hypothetical argument you make also.

[Torrens54]

Just while we argue the point about right and wrong here, perhaps we should also ask just how much TAX Starbucks has paid in Thailand?

Perhaps like in other places, STARBUCKS isn't paying much tax at all and before they try and get their case to Court, they should pull their corporate finger out and act like a RESPONSIBLE Business. Till then.... BOYCOTT STARBUCKS!

[rametindallas]

Most commenters on various news sites fail to understand the fundamental differences between "copyright" and "trademark". The laws regarding the two are not the same.

In this case Starbucks is protecting a trademark. If they do not, and let everyone copy them, then eventually they may lose the right to protect it, as a court might say something like "well, you guys have let everyone copy your logo for the last 20 years. If you cared about your logo, you should have done something earlier, now it is too late - you lose".

Starbucks is obviously not concerned about Starbung, but they are concerned about their logo, and later it may not be a small street stall, but a proper chain of coffee shops opening up with a similar logo who can actually compete with Starbucks.

So in short, this case may or may not be good for Starbucks' reputation, personally I do not think it matters whatsoever, and obviously neither does Starbucks. However, Starbucks is not fighting this case to protect their reputation or to avoid competition from Starbung, they are protecting their trademark - and that is worth alot to most multinationals.

Agree and disagree. Why does Starbucks do nothing about all the tee shirts sold with their logo? Free advertising right?

So if they are so worried about their trademark they should file a case against everyone who wears a tee shirt with the starbucks logo, with out permission from starbucks. So to an extent it's hypocracy.

Just a multinational trying to show their bullying power. I do hope that the coffee vendor comes out on top.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

T-Shirts aren't selling coffee; they are advertising coffee. T-Shirts are free advertising; they remind people of Starbucks and make them want a cup of coffee. They can't get the coffee from the T-Shirt so they go to Starbucks.

[rametindallas]

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

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

[Bikkii]

The logo is indeed rather starbucks like and any muslim influence to my eye rests on the fact that the bloke in the middle of the logo must be the prophet Mohammad smoking a bong.

Having said that, it is clear Mr Bung is not trying to copy star bucks here, otherwise he's be urinating into a cup and selling it for $6 a pop.

Of course Starbucks grew into a multi-billion dollar company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries by selling poor products that nobody wanted to buy.

All the evidence points to the obvious fact that they know much more about quality coffee and much more about delivering quality products to customers than you. I'm fairly certain of one thing that Starbucks did NOT do that helped them to grow into such a successful company;

They didn't take advice from you!

Are you claiming that the coffee and food are quality?? Shame on you. Now go and wash your mouth out with soap before you say anything else as ridiculous as that!

You are simply demonstrating that you are one more person who knows much less about coffee and customer service than the company with over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. You are the one pegging the ThaiVisa "Ridiculous" meter!

Ok now you have lost me. Customer service? Starbucks? What planet are you on bro, seriously.

Clearly you know nothing about coffee. Your suggesting that warmed diluted buffallo dung in a glass/cup/mug is coffee? Perhaps only to the ample simpletons in this world that should know better. Notice how well Starbucks seem to do in countries with absolutley no coffee culture?