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

Whatever happened to live and latte live.

lol!!!!

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

And what pray tell made you do this ??

Im no fan of starbucks but they have a right to defend their business and it equity which includes their logo/ brand

What ridiculous notion did you harbour that establishing a boycott Starbucks page would do anything constructive.

Just amazes me that you'd actually confess to doing this....

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?

Just because Starbucks is successful they must have committed copyright violation(s)? Where do you people come up with this stuff? How about some evidence? Or are you of the mindset that success equals evil and therefore anyone, or any entity that is successful deserves to be the victim of theft?

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?

Two wrongs don't make a right. And in the scheme of things, infringing copyright is the least of Starbucks offences. Serving over priced crap coffee which definately used to be (and likely still is) at least partially harvested by child (slave?) labour being of far greater concern.

However, let's look at this issue for what it is, one man copying the logo of another. He is wrong. He knows it. He could have got out of it, or taken a different path to garner sympathy. Telling fibs that won't hold up in a court except one of 12 completlely blind jurours was proably the poorer of the choices he could of made.

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.

. . . and its called ". . trading off" when you deliberately use the fame, expertise, value inherent in a recognised brand by imitating the brand to increase your own business.

I have never been in a Starbucks, and whatever you think of them, if they allowed one business to imitate it, you are correct in saying it could spread, quite rapidly. Good thing or bad thing, its Starbucks call and its pretty standard behaviour in the world of business and trading names.

It's funny how so many people complain about companies like Starbucks due to their size and power,, and yet they are only that way because we buy their product and support them so they can grow and become so dominant.

we all seem to want the little guy to win but more often then not we chose the big boys when we shop. In this case the guy has clearly copied the logo and if there is one thing that these big companies will protect every single time it is their brand, it is after all the only thing they have, without it they are just like any other coffee shop and they lose the premium they charge.

So the little guy should drop this, change his logo, try and use the publicity to launch his new brand and get on with it.

They guy is a thief and a liar.

Ive heard the comments about why Starbucks should just lay low etc.

The thing here is that it just reinforces Thailand as being a "F*&k You, we can do what we want type attitude" and that extends to many of the dealings with Thailand and the rest of the world.

This should be dealt with by Thailand and swiftly before it gets worse!

Starbucks....GO...GO...GO! Burn him down.

The dude should get what's coming to him. He is about as smart as a box of rocks. Typical Muslin attitude..... I'm always right and I will fight you to prove I'm right. I hope Starbucks sticks this out all the way, even if they suffer some PR points.

This is NOT corporate bullying, it is protecting a company image, and they have every right to do so.

don't worry I saved the day I am starting a Starbunghole shop ...

I suspect the concern of starbucks is that give them an inch and they will take a mile....or if they look the other way it may set a legal precedent that could come back to bite them on other cases

I agree. When I first moved to Thailand I worked for an international hotel chain and one of the housekeepers helped herself to a can of coke from the minibar. Instant dismissal.

There was an undercurrent among some other staff that it was unfair and she should have received a written warning. Yeah right. That'd be open season on pilfering wouldn't it?.

"I just got caught nicking a can of coke/bag of peanuts/kit kat. Written warning please"

Starbucks are nipping it in the bud and rightly so I reckon. Bugger that David and Goliath stuff. They've got every right to protect themselves. I doubt any of us would be to happy to start a fledgling business in Thailand and then next day see Somchai down the street copying it lock, stock and barrel.

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

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 alt=tongue.png width=20 height=20>

And what pray tell made you do this ??

Im no fan of starbucks but they have a right to defend their business and it equity which includes their logo/ brand

What ridiculous notion did you harbour that establishing a boycott Starbucks page would do anything constructive.

Just amazes me that you'd actually confess to doing this....

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

Absolutely within their rights. Doesn't make it smart.

Good for you! Starbucks loses no money from this whatsoever...it is a Western plague they want planted in the east... Screw Starphuks. I am going to go find you and buy a cup of coffee for 500 baht. Don't keep the change, that is what it is worth.

Edited October 23, 201312 yr by FangFerang

I guess that Damrong is paying more in taxes here than Star*ucks does in Germany.

The Starbucks logo is getting copied other places around the world. Sooner or later Starbucks would have to take action and probably hoped the offenders would just back down as this guy should have. Curious that a moslem would rip off a logo from a "Great Satan" company.

don't worry I saved the day I am starting a Starbunghole shop ...

I'll be first in line.

Edited October 23, 201312 yr by cambobbo

Whatever happened to live and latte live.

No need to make a mocha'ry of the situation.

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

Absolutely within their rights. Doesn't make it smart.

Thanks for the brilliant idea I am opening an S&B next to S&P fallow your local newspapers for the results ...

Why don't they just buy him out or put him on the payroll?

MUSLIM.

Strange how one small word can change peoples perception of right and wrong.

On the original thread, where Mr Damrongs religion was not mentioned, 99% of the posters supported him against the multinational giant.

On this thread however, where the OP mentions him as a muslim from the south, a clear majority of the posters are in favour of Starbucks!

Wonder why??

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'm boycotting Facebook on the grounds of their beheading videos policy.

Starbucks is experiencing a PR storm in China as well after state television did a 20-minute piece on how they're ripping off the Chinese consumer. Same deal in Thailand -- the Starbucks coffee I've had here is watery and smells burnt, and it's considerably more expensive than in the US. There are so many good, comfortable coffee shops and cafes throughout the kingdom that sell quality northern Thai coffee for no more than 40 or 50 baht. Why anyone goes to Starbucks is beyond me.

STARBUNG FOREVER.

If the law sucks change the law, non-enforcement isn't the answer; you'll just end up being like, eh, certain countries.

Starbucks coffee sucks and is overpriced, but......

Thais are taught to copy from the 1st day at school and continue to do so.

Not Thai bashing, just a fact that I see everyday with my wife's students. Yes, there are a few with a brain and some individuality but they struggle to thrive.

This guy will lose, it will cost him and Starbucks will not notice any drop in sales from it.

Give up buddy and think of a new name and logo.

Yes, he could call it Gloria Beans. Or get into fast food with a chain of MoHammads restaurants, with a golden crescent logo.

Well the problem is not Starbucks and should not be seen as it but as a copyright / trademark infringement. That's it.

How can Thailand attract investors if such basic interests aren't protected by the law?

Edited October 23, 201312 yr by sunray69

I'm not a customer or fan of Starbucks. Hate them actually ... but let's face it. It's an obvious rip off. I believe companies have the right to protect their copyrighted material/logos.

Mr Bung had a lot of support but by claiming the logo was inspired by Islam I'm afraid he's done that peculiarly muslim thing and blown it.

Logo inspired by islam? Yeah, riiiiight! I mean what are the chances that someone creates a logo off the top of their head and it looks like the one from Starbucks? And Starbung???

Starbucks needs to take a look at themselves. This guy is hardly stealing their market at the moment. They [ starbucks ] are actling like the playground bully.

No, 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>