Prbkk Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 ...and the post about Statrbucks and ethics conveniently ignores the major dispute they had with Ethiopian coffee growers a few years back. Oxfam intervened and helped resolve what was becoming a very ugly incident . It didn't reflect well on Starbucks and certainly not the behaviour of the good corporate citizen ....more like a cartel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarangTalk Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 This is all Thaksin's fault, isn't it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Free publicity - but a lot of it is negative. My personal opinion is that they are petty minded money grabbing ***** . This man's cart could never, ever, be mistaken for having any link to Starbucks, and having tried his coffee its a lot better and a lot cheaper. Starbucks need a hard kick up the rear. Starbucks' customer base could not care less about this case or what happens to Mr. Bung; they probably like that Starbucks is going after this pretender that is bringing down the reputation of their hi-so coffee chain. People who hated Starbucks or other corporate haters will not go less often because they already don't go. Keep wishing for something bad on people and Karma may sneak up and bite you on the butt. I'm glad you bought some of Mr. Bung's coffee; he can use the profit he made off you to pay Starbucks damages for copying their trademark. From a distance, Mr. Bung's logo can easily be confused because it is the same shape, color, word spacing, lettering, and has a picture in the middle. For Thai or Chinese people, who don't use Roman characters in their alphabet, the lettering on the sign looks close enough to be confusing. Some may think it is a new 'mobile' Starbucks that is being licensed out. You say the man's cart could never, ever be mistaken for having any link to Starbucks but you just wait and see when the court finds against Mr. Bung. I want all the people who supported him in this, and the others who told him he was right and should fight, to 'pass the hat' and help him pay the fine so he can stay out of jail. Hitler Chicken was not as close to KFC's branding as Mr. Bung's logo is to Starbucks'. BTW he only recently changed the mermaid to a more masculine figure that still has two tails. Mr. Bung probably never had an original idea in his life and wants to leech off he good name and reputation of Starbucks. If Starbucks doesn't have a good name and reputation, why are so many trying to copy it? If the coffee is so bad, why is it the World's largest seller? Too bad so many posters think with their emotions instead of their brains. You say Keep wishing for something bad on people and Karma may sneak up and bite you on the butt. Starbucks has a big butt. Glad to see you point out the err of their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boisian Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Clearly within their right to sue for breach of trademark, Starbucks highlight the reason why we need to fight all copyright laws. Coca Karma i first came across on GNN guerilla news network. Google Coca-Karma.pdf for a great, if long, read about Coca legally losing ownership of certain trademarks, but then bullying their way over the top. Multinationals do not respect the laws they use to protect themselves. These laws are open to abuse by the multinationals. Why not introduce a level playing field. I am an architect, I deal in I.P. but I do not believe in it. I do not want to hear about the benefits of profit driven research, which is already shown to be a poisoned chalice. A good idea gives the inventor a head start, and really that is all a good idea should be worth, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yes, the logo is causing all sorts of confusion....I was in a BTS earlier and saw a Rabbit Card Promo with a logo but wasn't sure if it is Starbucks or Starbung giving rewards. So confusing.... As I have been reading your post, I agree that you are easily confused. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Herman Melville needs to sue Starbucks, posthumously of course. Why? Did he trademark the name Starbucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 ...and the post about Statrbucks and ethics conveniently ignores the major dispute they had with Ethiopian coffee growers a few years back. Oxfam intervened and helped resolve what was becoming a very ugly incident . It didn't reflect well on Starbucks and certainly not the behaviour of the good corporate citizen ....more like a cartel Link, please or you're making it up. The quality of Starbucks coffee: Ethically Sourced Coffee Goals and Progress http://www.starbucks...sourcing/coffee Starbucks Quality Assurance http://www.studymode...nce-353560.html Starbucks Puts Quality Over Quantity http://www.theatlant...quantity/64511/ Starbucks Continues Pursuit For Quality Coffee Products http://www.idea-sand...offee-products/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Free publicity - but a lot of it is negative. My personal opinion is that they are petty minded money grabbing ***** . This man's cart could never, ever, be mistaken for having any link to Starbucks, and having tried his coffee its a lot better and a lot cheaper. Starbucks need a hard kick up the rear. Starbucks' customer base could not care less about this case or what happens to Mr. Bung; they probably like that Starbucks is going after this pretender that is bringing down the reputation of their hi-so coffee chain. People who hated Starbucks or other corporate haters will not go less often because they already don't go. Keep wishing for something bad on people and Karma may sneak up and bite you on the butt. I'm glad you bought some of Mr. Bung's coffee; he can use the profit he made off you to pay Starbucks damages for copying their trademark. From a distance, Mr. Bung's logo can easily be confused because it is the same shape, color, word spacing, lettering, and has a picture in the middle. For Thai or Chinese people, who don't use Roman characters in their alphabet, the lettering on the sign looks close enough to be confusing. Some may think it is a new 'mobile' Starbucks that is being licensed out. You say the man's cart could never, ever be mistaken for having any link to Starbucks but you just wait and see when the court finds against Mr. Bung. I want all the people who supported him in this, and the others who told him he was right and should fight, to 'pass the hat' and help him pay the fine so he can stay out of jail. Hitler Chicken was not as close to KFC's branding as Mr. Bung's logo is to Starbucks'. BTW he only recently changed the mermaid to a more masculine figure that still has two tails. Mr. Bung probably never had an original idea in his life and wants to leech off he good name and reputation of Starbucks. If Starbucks doesn't have a good name and reputation, why are so many trying to copy it? If the coffee is so bad, why is it the World's largest seller? Too bad so many posters think with their emotions instead of their brains. You say Keep wishing for something bad on people and Karma may sneak up and bite you on the butt. Starbucks has a big butt. Glad to see you point out the err of their ways. Starbucks is not causing damage to Mr. Bung. Starbucks is properly going through the courts. If Mr. Bung is as innocent as some of you say, Starbucks will have wasted money and gotten bad publicity for nothing. The publicity has only helped Mr. Bung up to now. OTOH, If Mr. Bung is in the wrong, Starbuck will not be handing out justice and incurring bad Karma but the courts will be doing, in your opinion, the 'dirty' deed. Edited October 31, 2013 by rametindallas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 [ So you would also applaud the decision by Ethiopian coffee growers to trademark Ethiopian Coffee (vehemently opposed by Starbucks))? quote name=Halion" post="6956106" timestamp="1382537006] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 People arguing about whether Starbucks is good coffee, is a bit like people arguing that McDonalds make good burgers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 ...and the post about Statrbucks and ethics conveniently ignores the major dispute they had with Ethiopian coffee growers a few years back. Oxfam intervened and helped resolve what was becoming a very ugly incident . It didn't reflect well on Starbucks and certainly not the behaviour of the good corporate citizen ....more like a cartelLink, please or you're making it up.The quality of Starbucks coffee: Ethically Sourced Coffee Goals and Progress http://www.starbucks...sourcing/coffee Starbucks Quality Assurance http://www.studymode...nce-353560.html Starbucks Puts Quality Over Quantity http://www.theatlant...quantity/64511/ Starbucks Continues Pursuit For Quality Coffee Products http://www.idea-sand...offee-products/ I think the simplest question if ethics would be the transfer pricing and licencing policy that Starbucks uses to transfer price is profits to low tax countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rjcampbe Posted November 13, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted November 13, 2013 Yes, Burger King, hungry jacks....whatever the name, still merchants of death and disease, flogging fat-laden, sugar overload rubbish. 1200 calories in a burger...and so heavily promoted through slick and sly gimmicks aimed at children. They must be required by law to state that their food is dangerous and will, if consumed in significant quantity, lead to a much higher likelihood of disease and premature death. Starbucks has 2 drinks on the name and shame list of the most unhealthy drinks in the USA ( mega calories, sugar equivalent to 8 scoops of full fat icecream). These companies are now under much greater scrutiny in the developed world but continue to export the misery with impunity. Marketing dangerous food to children is unethical Sorry... I must have missed it... What the hell does your post have to do with the issue of trademark infringement? It's not about whether or not the company is good or bad... its not even about whether the consumer should be educated about their purchasing habits and make intelligent choices for themselves about what they eat or drink. The fact is, there are laws that protect a companies intellectual property. That includes their names, brands and logos. If you try to sell a competing product and copy your competitors brand elements, you are going to get sued. And it doesn't matter if you are selling celery juice or soap suds... If you were stop your ranting against business for a minute and actually THINK, would you really want it to be any other way? Would you like to walk into a store like Whole Foods in the US and think you were buying all organic produce only to find out that it wasn't REALLY Whole Foods and everything you bought was genetically engineered and grown with chemicals and hormones? Ahh... so the integrity of the brand and the ability to defend it from copycats DOES matter.... I thought so. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiSmarterThanYou Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Why would a street seller who have nothing to loose obey to these stupid rules ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swampdonkey Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Why would a street seller who have nothing to loose obey to these stupid rules ? You are posting on a thread that is 1 year old. The street seller is no more He now has 3 jet skis in Pattaya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratcatcher Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Why would a street seller who have nothing to loose obey to these stupid rules ? You are posting on a thread that is 1 year old. The street seller is no more He now has 3 jet skis in Pattaya SD, he's Thai and he's smarter than you. Another cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 This small vendor is going to put Starbucks international out of business for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojorison Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Throw the book at him. Obviously knows nothing about coffee... Starbucks... good lord. Never trust an American to make a cup of coffee. Insert some cliche about imitation and flattery, and wait for clutchclark to rescue the thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 What the StarBung guy knows - is that Starbucks will never get any money ... he will escape and evade ... and he knows it... He will eventually shut down ... reform -- start up again as something else with a following and Starbucks will chase him and never catch him ... Next it will be Dunkin Donuts Coffee... all the while on a local scale economy the guy will have a following. In America -- a guy like this could not exist -- which is what just kills Starbucks Corp.. they cannot run over the little guy in Asia.. With some not so serious money the guy can pay off a judge and be totally immune For better or worse ...and I do not even come close to say the guy is in the right ... But Thailand is Not America ... The best thing they can do - it just give the guy a Franchise and shake hands - take photos -- kiss kiss and have a happy ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankOff Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Never fight with a Muslim. Muslim always win. ......7 virgins in heaven...win-win for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Well, that year passed more quickly than the one before it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metapod Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 He straight up jacked their logo and name. Exact same design, colors, size, font, shape, etc Those trying to boycott Starbucks over this are morons. Businesses have to defend their trademarks. A business can lose a trademark if they do not defend it., you realize this? The guy should just change his logo. Problem solved. Starbucks will win this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamyai3 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Great idea to resurrect a zombie thread at Halloween! Google "bung's tears" and you'll see this issue was resolved a year ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzdocxx Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Has anyone patronized this fellow's shop ? How's the coffee, anyway ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzdocxx Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Somewhat amusing, considering the English meaning for the word "Bung". Edited November 1, 2014 by zzdocxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacewagon Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) How about this one http://www.sattarbuksh.com/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/606993/everyones-talking-about-sattar-buksh/ https://www.facebook.com/sattarbuksh Edited November 1, 2014 by spacewagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englishoak Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 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 I dont like starbucks or the way they operate but its pretty clear the guy would have never thought the logo up on his own without them or their brand parody. Wont be getting my sig and i dont use starbucks anyway but not for this guys or your reason and I do think getting on the bandwagon of boycott simply because its an easy target and using this forum to promote doing so is a bit much. The amount they are suing for is also proportionate and not excessive, id say let the courts decide on copyright not facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Keep fighting the little man can win. Burger King took on the little man in Aust and lost and now have to use the name Hungry Jacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swampdonkey Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Why would a street seller who have nothing to loose obey to these stupid rules ?You are posting on a thread that is 1 year old.The street seller is no more He now has 3 jet skis in Pattaya SD, he's Thai and he's smarter than you. Another cup? He's not that smart, Had to rename his stall and change the logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rametindallas Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Somewhat amusing, considering the English meaning for the word "Bung". I think you are confusing the word 'bung' for the English slang meaning of 'bung hole'. bung: a piece of wood, rubber, etc., that is used to close or cover a hole in a barrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOC Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 The only ones that should be charged here are Starbucks, for overcharging for the brown liquid the call coffee!! And when they are at it, charge their customers as well for criminal negligence for paying stupid money for the "Starbucks experience" (!!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now