Bangkok coffee vendor backs down to Starbucks' legal might, changes logo

[bangon04]

As far as I can tell, if he ripped off the Black Canyon logo instead, he might be floating in the khlong by now, not wasting the time of expensive lawyers..

For the same reason you can buy a ripoff DVD of the latest Hollywood blockbuster even before it finishes its cinema run in Sukhumvit, but you have a real struggle to find any ripoff of the latest Thai ghost story of the week or Katoey "comedy"... or the latest "Bird" facelift concert....

Edited November 5, 2013 by bangon04

[kimamey]

Yet another Thai with big hat and no cattle!!

Wonder if the new logo was inspired by Islam aswell??

Still not a big fan of Starbucks, but this was clearly of case of logo-theft!!

this logo is as Islamic as technically possible:

Bung is the for Muslim men what is Khun for Thais

green is the color of the Prophet

the moon with the star is well known

and the logo with the arabic writing is also self explaining

Not really a chance to confuse that with starbucks

and logo-theft.

I am not sure for English but in my language is theft when you steel something so you have it now and the other one doesn't has it anymore.

Starbucks still has its logo, so it can be only a not authorized copy, not a theft.

So, using your logic, can we assume that Ronald McDonald would turn a blind eye to a new franchise in an Arab country using this sign and selling camel burgers?

McHammed's - pic12651.jpg

It is not "non-authorized copy" but trademark theft.

You obviously have no grasp of copyright and trademark law. If Starbucks had not pursued Damrong, he might have opened a string of Starbung shops and legally Starbucks wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That is why they were so serious. And they won.

He had his time in the limelight and will now sell more coffee. A win win situation.

I think the theft refers not to the logo but to the exclusive right to use that logo. If someone else uses it they have taken that exclusive right so the original owners no longer have it. Mind you neither does the person who took it.

[PaullyW]

I am wondering if the Logo and Name would have any resemblance to the current 'Starbung / Stylebung' logo and name had Starbucks never existed....

I would guess that we'd have one of the following on our hands...

...McBung Coffee

...KFCoffee

...Au Bon Bung

...Bung Canyon

Bung and Deluca

TRUE Bung

Cafe Doi Bung

The Bung Club

Edited November 5, 2013 by PaullyW

[alfalfa19]

Next time I am in Thailand, I will definitely patronize this guy. Just to irritate the Starbucks bungholes. Starbucks coffee IS crap, the only thing good about it is the strength of their house coffee.

[ginjag]

Next time I am in Thailand, I will definitely patronize this guy. Just to irritate the Starbucks bungholes. Starbucks coffee IS crap, the only thing good about it is the strength of their house coffee.

What a lovely way to spend a holiday "The next time" in Thailand I will drink this guys coffee that will hurt Starbucks. My trip will not be in vain.

[pacovl46]

Yet another Thai with big hat and no cattle!!

Wonder if the new logo was inspired by Islam aswell??

Still not a big fan of Starbucks, but this was clearly of case of logo-theft!!

this logo is as Islamic as technically possible:

Bung is the for Muslim men what is Khun for Thais

green is the color of the Prophet

the moon with the star is well known

and the logo with the arabic writing is also self explaining

Not really a chance to confuse that with starbucks

and logo-theft.

I am not sure for English but in my language is theft when you steel something so you have it now and the other one doesn't has it anymore.

Starbucks still has its logo, so it can be only a not authorized copy, not a theft.

Ok, so if you develop a pill for coughs and I take that pill, have it analyzed in a lab and then copied so I can sell it you still have your own pills, but I have your pill recipe and therefore I stole that recipe from you and that makes it theft. It's called intellectual property theft.

[fakename]

Lots of mini marts around, with similar colors to 7/eleven, seen even a similar name, "seventeen". Seems that everything and anything will be copied here, and even expected. If someone has a successful business, then copy it!!

[Maseratimartin]

So in future it will not be possible to sell coffee anymore...?

The coffee has the same color like the one of Starbucks, uses coffee beans and water...damn again same like Starbucks....oh look but it tastes better!

The label was sure leaned on the design of Starbucks, but it was not identical and as soo should be ok! Where you want to draw a line?

[Tywais]

The label was sure leaned on the design of Starbucks, but it was not identical and as soo should be ok! Where you want to draw a line?

Will repost my post from the other topic on the trademark infringement. And this is a trademark violation not a copyright. Note the 2nd paragraph commenting on "Likelihood of confusion". The similarities are too obvious to discount his intent to piggyback on Starbucks name.

To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that it has a valid mark entitled to protection; and that the defendant used the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff must also show that defendant's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of defendant with plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of defendant's goods, services or commercial activities by plaintiff. Thus, "use," "in commerce," and "likelihood of confusion" are three distinct elements necessary to establish a trademark infringment claim.

"Likelihood of confusion" is the central focus of any trademark infringement claim. A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the allegedly infringing mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified with a similar mark. Courts conducting a likelihood of confusion analysis apply a different standard to directly competing, as opposed to non-competing, goods. When the alleged infringer and the trademark owner deal in competing goods or services, the court rarely needs to look beyond the mark itself; infringement will usually be found if the two marks at issue are sufficiently similar that consumer confusion can be expected. If the goods in question are completely unrelated, confusion is unlikely and infringement will generally not be found.

Cornell University of Law

[mca]

Next time I am in Thailand, I will definitely patronize this guy. Just to irritate the Starbucks bungholes.

Yeah I bet Howard Schultz will be seething.

[nycjoe]

i like the viagra coffee myself, a REAL pick me up for this old dog. )............

[little mary sunshine]

Another thief trying to make money off a good company. I wouldn't pay

1 baht for a cup of tea at this place. Good going Starbucks, it's your

business that was being ripped off............

[dao16]

Now I wonder what's going to happen when I launch my own copy of StyleBung coffee all over Thailand....it'll be the next big thing. I will be clear to operate without worrying about Starbucks, and, in theory, the StyleBung guy will be on my side! Rock and roll.

Edited November 6, 2013 by dao16

[charliebru]

Unfortunately, Starbucks had every legal right to take this guy on; if they didn't there could be hundreds of these guys in Thailand and other countries. Strange for a moslem to be so insistent about copying a "Great Satan" company logo. To all of you with the Starbucks is crap comments: Yeah right, that's why there are so many Starbucks stores around; they sell crap for high prices.

[tingtongteesood]

He purposely ripped off the starbucks logo to improve his business and this whole affair has improved his business more with free publicity. Once again doing the WRONG thing here has made somebody richer. He should still be made to pay the court fees for yesterday for being a stubborn publicity whore..

[GAZZPA]

Yet another Thai with big hat and no cattle!!

Wonder if the new logo was inspired by Islam aswell??

Still not a big fan of Starbucks, but this was clearly of case of logo-theft!!

this logo is as Islamic as technically possible:

Bung is the for Muslim men what is Khun for Thais

green is the color of the Prophet

the moon with the star is well known

and the logo with the arabic writing is also self explaining

Not really a chance to confuse that with starbucks

and logo-theft.

I am not sure for English but in my language is theft when you steel something so you have it now and the other one doesn't has it anymore.

Starbucks still has its logo, so it can be only a not authorized copy, not a theft.

It is theft in any language. They copied the logo and profited from it, therefore they are stealing the rights of exclusivity and ownership of the logo. You are trying to be clever about this, it is really simple.. Starbucks own the logo and brand, they have invested enormous money in building the brand, this joker copied it and tried to profit from it without any of the investment or permission.

He is lucky he is not in prison. Basically, if he went to court he would likely be convicted of copyright THEFT..

[Card]

He needs to change the logo. If I come across his cart in the street with that logo I would immediately mistake it for a genuine Starbucks outlet. No mistake.

[SpokaneAl]

I find the discussions on the merits of Starbucks as a company interesting. And at the risk of inciting those who are obviously much smarter than me on the subject, here is my opinion and perspective.

Each year I spend six months in Thailand (up in the hinterlands of Issan) and six months in the great state of Washington.

While in Washington I do drink my fair share of Starbucks coffee (the vanilla latte is my drink of choice), and also visit a large number of other, smaller operations.

Starbucks stores are always immaculate, and the staff is friendly and knowledgeable. I can pay for my coffee via my smart phone and the free wifi is always quick and available. There are always open, clean tables at the ready. I often meet friends and groups of friends there and the staff is always willing to help us re-arrange seating so everyone fits.

They, like others, give me a free drink after I purchase nine or so, and also give me a free one on my birthday. On more than one occasion, I was given a free drink after waiting in the drive through line, just because they thought I had waited a bit long. And again, this is all done via my smart phone.

The company continues to only sell free trade coffee, and seems to be very careful with ensuring its vendors do things right. Additionally, Starbucks goes above and beyond to ensure that even part time employees are provided with full benefit packages which also often includes stock options.

As others have commented, Starbucks as an investment has done well by me. I am an old retired guy and investments in companies such as Starbucks, via mutual funds, have helped provide me with a comfortable retirement and life options.

So from my perspective, what’s not to like?

Cheers.

Edited November 7, 2013 by metisdead
Font reset to default forum font.

[Fullstop]

It's STILL not very original ... but then Thais have no imagination.

[Emdog]

Good to see he woke up and smelled the coffee. If all the Starbucks bashers are right, that Starbucks is such crap, then perhaps they should ask our canny businessman why he would want to be confused with Starbucks? Hmmmm....

[Billmont]

There was a somewhat similar case in the UK some years ago. A man whose name was actually Mcdonald and had a burger bar with his name over the shop. He refused to take it down was was taken to court and lost. Sometimes you can't even use your own name if it has previously been registered as a trading name by another business. So no good thinking of changing your name by deed poll to use an already registered trade name.:-)

[peterbkk9]

That Starbucks is a big multinational company, that their coffee is expensive, or does not taste good to some, is not relevant.

What I see is somebody copied their logo. Copyright infringement is a form of theft, and I think this is just not right, is it?

Edited November 6, 2013 by peterbkk9

[Fullstop]

Good to see he woke up and smelled the coffee. If all the Starbucks bashers are right, that Starbucks is such crap, then perhaps they should ask our canny businessman why he would want to be confused with Starbucks? Hmmmm....

Well it's like this.... (taking Emdog gently by the elbow) People who wish to be perceived as "Cool" or whatever will sit and drink SB fare ... regardless of the overpriced mediocre swill. And in Thailand especially ... where "FACE" is all important.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Fullstop

[kimamey]

Yet another Thai with big hat and no cattle!!

Wonder if the new logo was inspired by Islam aswell??

Still not a big fan of Starbucks, but this was clearly of case of logo-theft!!

this logo is as Islamic as technically possible:

Bung is the for Muslim men what is Khun for Thais

green is the color of the Prophet

the moon with the star is well known

and the logo with the arabic writing is also self explaining

Not really a chance to confuse that with starbucks

and logo-theft.

I am not sure for English but in my language is theft when you steel something so you have it now and the other one doesn't has it anymore.

Starbucks still has its logo, so it can be only a not authorized copy, not a theft.

It is theft in any language. They copied the logo and profited from it, therefore they are stealing the rights of exclusivity and ownership of the logo. You are trying to be clever about this, it is really simple.. Starbucks own the logo and brand, they have invested enormous money in building the brand, this joker copied it and tried to profit from it without any of the investment or permission.

He is lucky he is not in prison. Basically, if he went to court he would likely be convicted of copyright THEFT..

You're right about the theft as I mentioned in my earlier post but I think it's a valid question if there is confusion over the words used. Not really trying to be clever so just needs a straight answer.

[smileydude]

PR stint hidden under the guise of social injustice from big companies bullying the little ones?

I think it all started from a little creative copyright mimicking that was unexpectedly pursued for infringement. Using the public's ignorance of the seriousness of intellectual property rights the bung rode the waves of Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame for a while and then fell back before the big thumping came along. And I thought he really wanted to stand up for his ideological principles. Shame on my naiveness.

[Fullstop]

Maybe the old socks Khun Bunghole filters his coffee through is the real secret to his entrepreneurial success.

[jacko45k]

That Starbucks is a big multinational company, that their coffee is expensive, or does not taste good to some, is not relevant.

What I see is somebody copied their logo. Copyright infringement is a form of theft, and I think this is just not right, is it?

How is it a form of theft? Where is the personal property that he took?

I think his logo should also say 'Better Than Their Shit'.....

[draftvader]

That Starbucks is a big multinational company, that their coffee is expensive, or does not taste good to some, is not relevant.

What I see is somebody copied their logo. Copyright infringement is a form of theft, and I think this is just not right, is it?

How is it a form of theft? Where is the personal property that he took?

I think his logo should also say 'Better Than Their Shit'.....

If 1 person bought a coffee at his stall because the logo felt familiar to them then he stole that money from Starbucks. I don't think it comes much clearer than that.

I manage brands for small businesses in the UK and know the actual value of each of these brands in time, investments, revenue growth and projected figures. These are how my clients plan for the future and allows them to grow therefore ensuring their customers and their employees can be sure of a steady future. Using their branding statements to "imply" any of the messages that we have carefully aligned with these brands is directly stealing potential revenue from these businesses.

Do you get how this is theft yet or do you need a dissertation? For your information I personally can't understand why Starbucks is as big as it is based solely on their product as their coffee is not to my taste at all and have found that a lot of the coffee grown and produced in Thailand is better. However, as another poster has alluded to, they look after their customer base, ensure their product comes from reliable and reputable sources, provide many extras for their customers (free internet, customer accounts systems, globally reliable menu systems, comfortable environments) and have built this into their branding. People feel these things when they look at the logo and THAT is what they are protecting. What is it that this man offers?

[Spare]

Can Muslims sue Starbugs for using green, an Islamic colour?

[OZEMADE]

That Starbucks is a big multinational company, that their coffee is expensive, or does not taste good to some, is not relevant.

What I see is somebody copied their logo. Copyright infringement is a form of theft, and I think this is just not right, is it?

How is it a form of theft? Where is the personal property that he took?

I think his logo should also say 'Better Than Their Shit'.....

I hope the little Sh*t has the book thrown at him and he and his brother are put in their place and have to pay Starbucks the 300,000 and interest. See how much he smiles then.