Starbucks defends logo lawsuit against Thai stalls

[webfact]

Starbucks defends logo lawsuit against Thai stalls
Kesinee Tangkhieo
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Starbucks on Monday publicly defended its lawsuit against two Thai coffee stalls, claiming it has to protect its standards.

"We put emphasis on trademarks and it is necessary to launch appropriate actions against the violation of our trademark. This is to protect our clients and prevent possible damage to our reputation and brand," the US multinational said in a statement.

Throughout its 40-year history, it has put efforts into internationalising its reputation and brand, so it is important for it to maintain "the Starbucks experience", which is guaranteed whenever clients see its logo, it said.

Starbucks has resorted to friendly approaches and many violators have agreed to change their logos. Many attempts were made to convince Starbung owners to do the same thing, it said.

"We didn't want them to stop selling coffee, but to use a different logo. Starbucks also offered solutions to change the logo, but unfortunately, the owners declined to talk with us. We have no choice but take legal action."

On Monday, the first day of the case, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court ordered both Damrong and Damras to show up on November 18 to explain why they are still using the old logo. The two defendants did not appear at the court.

Starbucks demanded that the vendors stop using their logo, whose shape and colour are similar to the chain's logo. The company's attorneys showed the court a photo of the Thais' sidewalk stall taken on Sunday.

Starbucks also pressed for compensation of Bt300,000 plus Bt30,000 a month in legal fees.

Defence attorney Nakorn Chomphoochart said his clients have refused to engage in negotiations with Starbucks, as they still don't understand the laws involved.

Starbucks should also be prepared to understand his clients, who insist that their green-and-white logo, which depicts a Muslim man at its centre with crescent moons on the sides, was inspired by Islam, not Starbucks, he said.

Since landing in Thailand 15 years ago, Starbucks has opened over 150 branches.


-- The Nation 2013-11-06

related topic:
Bangkok coffee vendor backs down to Starbucks' legal might, changes logo
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/679611-bangkok-coffee-vendor-backs-down-to-starbucks-legal-might-changes-logo/

[bangon04]

Will they be going after the silly "humorous" T-shirts you can find on many market stalls, lampooning the Starbucks logo? Or is that acceptable use of the logo? If they are willing to invest money in lawyers fees for one vendor, surely they will want to take on the T-shirt factories too?

Edited November 5, 2013 by bangon04

[Thai at Heart]

I love how you can apparently just defy a court order to attend.

What a f******d up system.

[noitom]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Especially when the attorney is advising them. It is incumbent on the attorney to explain law and risk to the vendor. Thailand is a sham of counterfeit property and stolen trademarks. Starbuck should put their foot in the door on this one and not stand up to a shakedown by a Thai vendor.

[kurnell]

Too right. Thais rarely have an original thought when it comes to business. They are just monkey see, monkey do. Man opens a massage shop, neighbor apes him and opens one next door.

[rametindallas]

If Starbucks never existed, I doubt very much Mr. Bung's logo would look like it does.

[jaltsc]

"Defence attorney Nakorn Chomphoochart said his clients have refused to engage in negotiations with Starbucks, as they still don't understand the laws involved."

Only in this part of the world can someone get away with stealing, or if they are from a wealthy family, murder, by using the excuse that they don't understand that what they did was wrong. In a society with a functional legal system these thieves would be hauled into court and charged with failure to appear in addition to the original charges.

Perhaps this type of 'justice' is reflective of a society of congenital thieves and liars where ignorance is a valid defense. A person doesn't need to go to law school to use the same defense for every client: "He's so stupid that you must find him innocent".

[soi41]

"This is to protect our clients and prevent possible damage to our reputation and brand"

So Starbucks are serving the brown liquid, they call coffee, for 5$ a cup, solely out of interest for their clients??

[DocN]

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor!

Get real, folks!

Get some perspective!

...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Edited November 6, 2013 by DocN

[BMF1960]

" Defence attorney Nakorn Chomphoochart said his clients have refused to engage in negotiations with Starbucks, as they still don't understand the laws involved." Let's call this the Yingluck defence!

[BMF1960]

I do wonder if Starbucks is doing the same in other countries. There are coffee shops in China (I suspect a chain) that totally cope the Starbucks logo and colour scheme. I do hope they are being consistent in their "legal" pursuits. Or is it easier to take on the pup and let the dog roam free?

[lemonjelly]

< Starbucks also pressed for compensation of Bt300,000 plus Bt30,000 a month in legal fees.> ...... that deserves a boycott, these multinationals need bringing down a peg or three.

[ridkun]

Thai's trademarks law only prohibits copying with intention to fool the customers e.g. to think Starbung is Starbucks in this case, and I never met any person smart enough to be fooled like that except those Starbucks attorneys.

[Baloo22]

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally 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 people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of 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>

[ratcatcher]

I do wonder if Starbucks is doing the same in other countries. There are coffee shops in China (I suspect a chain) that totally cope the Starbucks logo and colour scheme. I do hope they are being consistent in their "legal" pursuits. Or is it easier to take on the pup and let the dog roam free?

I expect the backlash from the Chinese would be far greater than the Damright brothers here in Thailand..

All in all, a storm in a coffee cup.

[jalansanitwong]

i dont drink at Starbucks but they have every right to protect their brand.

Thais dont care about the law and never will.

They always use the ' poor little Asian man v big brother excuse.'

The street vendor will try and screw Starbucks for money . I wouldnt give the soi &lt;deleted&gt; anything.

Start a business with an original idea and stop copying farangs...... Lazy Thai's.

[Baloo22]

Will they be going after the silly "humorous" T-shirts you can find on many market stalls, lampooning the Starbucks logo? Or is that acceptable use of the logo? If they are willing to invest money in lawyers fees for one vendor, surely they will want to take on the T-shirt factories too?

The difference is that their (Starbucks) business is selling coffee, other beverages, and snacks. T-shirts are not the signature product or even a significant portion of their business. I suspect, to them, all those T-shirts are just more free advertisement.

Bunghole boy from Bangkok, and apparently others, are using their logo to sell their signature product. He was spoken to before this and given the option to cease stealing the Starbucks logo. He refused. He deserves no sympathy at all. Undoubtedly, he doesn't see any wrong in stealing someones logo. It's normal business procedure in the land of Copy-Cheat-Steal.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Baloo22

[pacovl46]

"This is to protect our clients and prevent possible damage to our reputation and brand."

Right, like no one is able to tell the difference between a roadside stall and an actual Starbucks shop and Starbung and Starbucks!

[DocN]

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally 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 people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of 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>

The keyword still is "perspective".

If someone opens a SHOP, with chairs and muffins and plasters it with a copy-cat starbucks- logo....fine!

Sue his @$$ off!

Push carts?

Seriously?

[Maseratimartin]

I do wonder if Starbucks is doing the same in other countries. There are coffee shops in China (I suspect a chain) that totally cope the Starbucks logo and colour scheme. I do hope they are being consistent in their "legal" pursuits. Or is it easier to take on the pup and let the dog roam free?

They can only push a small thai vendor...they do not have the balls to do this in China...nobody would even care about them!

People should understand the word copy!

Copy is when you do something identical! The thai vendors label was different and seems the coffee even tasted better....

[Baloo22]

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally 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 people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of 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>

The keyword still is "perspective".

If someone opens a SHOP, with chairs and muffins and plasters it with a copy-cat starbucks- logo....fine! Sue his @$$ off!

Push carts?

Seriously?

Seriously?

You still don't get it ???

Read it again !

BM Rametindallas explained it very well:

"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."

"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."

[Bababooey]

The difference is that their (Starbucks) business is selling coffee, other beverages, and snacks. T-shirts are not the signature product or even a significant portion of their business. I suspect, to them, all those T-shirts are just more free advertisement.

I would estimate that about 20% of middle class young adults and teenagers in Phnom Penh own a Starbucks T-Shirt even though there are no Starbucks in Cambodia. Amazing.

[JoeThePoster]

Since landing in Thailand 15 years ago, Starbucks has opened over 150 branches.

Looking forward to when they will start serving coffee.

[Baerboxer]

i dont drink at Starbucks but they have every right to protect their brand.

Thais dont care about the law and never will.

They always use the ' poor little Asian man v big brother excuse.'

The street vendor will try and screw Starbucks for money . I wouldnt give the soi &lt;deleted&gt; anything.

Start a business with an original idea and stop copying farangs...... Lazy Thai's.

And Starbucks really care about the law. They are so careful to exploit as many laws as possible to find tax avoidance loopholes. But that's smart business of course, to hell with ethics and morals.

[craigt3365]

"This is to protect our clients and prevent possible damage to our reputation and brand"

So Starbucks are serving the brown liquid, they call coffee, for 5$ a cup, solely out of interest for their clients??

I had a relative who use to work for Starbucks. She went through a lot of training. They value consistency and cleanliness.

I'm no fan of Starbucks, but you can't argue with their success. Obviously, a lot like the product. I've had it before and it is good. Just a bit expensive for me.

As was mentioned in another thread, if they don't defend their logo, they could lose it. Something they've worked hard on over the years.

[winstonc]

Since landing in Thailand 15 years ago, Starbucks has opened over 150 branches.

Looking forward to when they will start serving coffee.

looking forward to them paying tax... a vile greedy company,selling rubbish.but thats my opinion only...since they were exposed in the uk..they have lost a lot.and also there reputation ,makes me a happy bunny..

[DocN]

Yeah...I get it!

Again: who cares?

How can anyone ever proof to anyone else, that Starbucks WILLINGLY let this guy off the hook?

Did any Starbucks-customer complained to Starbucks- headquarter, that somewhere in the jungle of a 3rd world country a certain Somchai Watchingporn is pushing a cart, crowned by a logo, that in some way resembles the original Starbucks logo?

Or was it rather some overactive Starbucks- employee who wanted to be important for 5 minutes and reported to his boss, that he spotted something, that will bring down the empire?

They could just have turned a blind eye and let him go, pretended not to notice- problem solved!

And when some REALLY starts copy-catting...sue that guy!

PERSPECTIVE!

[klauskunkel]

Defence attorney Nakorn Chomphoochart said his clients have refused to engage in negotiations with Starbucks, as they still don't understand the laws involved

So? You're their lawyer, explain it to them, in Thai language. You lazy a**, sorry excuse for a professional.

I hate these lame statements of: "don't know, no have, we are just so poor and ignorant"

You were not so ignorant to piggy-back on a known brand's recognition...

...sorry I'm grumpy this morning, didn't have my coffee yet,...

[Baloo22]

Since landing in Thailand 15 years ago, Starbucks has opened over 150 branches.

Looking forward to when they will start serving coffee.

looking forward to them paying tax... a vile greedy company,selling rubbish.but thats my opinion only...since they were exposed in the uk..they have lost a lot.and also there reputation ,makes me a happy bunny..

And so exactly when did the Crown Prosecutor/Revenue Service, or whatever they call it over there in UK, bring Starbucks into court and when was Starbucks convicted of violating British tax laws and tax evasion??

Oh wait. That was right at half-past never! Since Starbucks DID NOT violate British law.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

[rametindallas]

"This is to protect our clients and prevent possible damage to our reputation and brand"

So Starbucks are serving the brown liquid, they call coffee, for 5$ a cup, solely out of interest for their clients??

Ah, the 'straw man' argument.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument