Starbucks defends logo lawsuit against Thai stalls

[rametindallas]

< 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.

Not that your boycott would be effective but with 150 outlets in Thailand, are you willing to jeopardize those jobs for the sake of the copycat, Mr. Bung. Starbuck is a huge job creator; what is Mr. Bung?

[tragickingdom]

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

[rametindallas]

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?

starb.jpgstarb1.jpgstarb2.jpgstarb3.jpgstarb4.jpgbucks.jpg

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.

Maybe Starbucks is in litigation in China over these copycats. If they weren't copycats, they wouldn't be so easy to find on the internet.

[rametindallas]

"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!

"like no one is able to tell the difference between a roadside stall and an actual Starbucks shop"

So, with that logic, Starbucks is protected only if no one is able to tell the difference their logo and Mr. Bung's. Shouldn't it be 'if only one person can't tell the difference, then the trademark has been violated. If you don't use English letters in your alphabet then you may not be able to read the difference between Starbucks and Starbung, especially it they are not side by side. If a sign was in Arabic, I couldn't tell if they had closely copied someone else's logo if only the lettering was different. It is quite possible that some people may think Starbucks has expanded to pushcarts to spread their business and, since the logos are so close, and they aren't as knowledgeable as you regarding Starbucks, some, for whom English is not their language, could mistake Mr. Bung's shop as being authorized. I'm sorry for you that you are not perceptive enough to see that.

[rametindallas]

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....

How do YOU know they are not actively pursuing violators in China and, what has the taste comparison have to do with trademark law? I'm glad you are not a defense lawyer; you would be laughed out of court with that kind of reasoning. This is a legal action and follows written and agreed to international trademark laws and not your 'feelings'.

[rametindallas]

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.

AND, Starbucks created lots to jobs and all those employees are paying taxes into the treasury, not on the dole, and supporting their families. Also Starbucks' suppliers got more business and maybe more employees paying taxes, etc.. Sounds like a net plus for Old Blighty.

[ridkun]

"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!

"like no one is able to tell the difference between a roadside stall and an actual Starbucks shop"

So, with that logic, Starbucks is protected only if no one is able to tell the difference their logo and Mr. Bung's. Shouldn't it be 'if only one person can't tell the difference, then the trademark has been violated. If you don't use English letters in your alphabet then you may not be able to read the difference between Starbucks and Starbung, especially it they are not side by side. If a sign was in Arabic, I couldn't tell if they had closely copied someone else's logo if only the lettering was different. It is quite possible that some people may think Starbucks has expanded to pushcarts to spread their business and, since the logos are so close, and they aren't as knowledgeable as you regarding Starbucks, some, for whom English is not their language, could mistake Mr. Bung's shop as being authorized. I'm sorry for you that you are not perceptive enough to see that.

You are either really good at escalating your logic or really good as sarcasm. Either way, if Mr.Bung has no intention to fool the people, it is legal. Any sane person can see that he has no intention to make people think he is operating a Starbucks' branch.

[Baloo22]

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

The high standards of providing products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for Starbucks to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Starbucks certainly knows much more about the subject than you. Proven success!

As far as your sideways snark "Not paying taxes..."; That's just more "&lt;deleted&gt;" from the from the talk-out-of-your-arse crowd.

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.

[NewlyMintedThai]

They're making Starbucks' lawyers look like monkeys, and good on them for it.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[Ulic]

What people have to understand is if you don't defend your trademark you loose them.

Everyone can open a coffee shop and call it a Starbucks

[Torrens54]

STARBUCKS..... the place to go when you feel an uncontrollable urge to be RIPPED-OFF for a Cup of "suspect" brown water.

[Torrens54]

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

The high standards of providing products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for Starbucks to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Starbucks certainly knows much more about the subject than you. Proven success!

As far as your sideways snark "Not paying taxes..."; That's just more "&lt;deleted&gt;" from the from the talk-out-of-your-arse crowd.

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.

Ah Baloo22, could it be that you have a "Vested Interest" in Starbucks?

Are they paying you BIG BUCKS????

[Thai at Heart]

"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".

And in the same breath that they claim to be ignorant, would get offended if you called them ignorant....

[isawasnake]

&lt;deleted&gt; Starbucks.

[Sealbash]

fuc_k Starbucks. 

And you were captain of which debate team?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[HerbalEd]

"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??

And hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide are buying it ... over and over again.

[kimamey]

< 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.

I very much doubt they expect to get it. Just making sure the message is clear.

[kimamey]

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.

As far as I know you're right that they didn't break any laws. The same with Amazon, Google ect although I believe there was an investigation into Google as some of their practices looked as if they might have been illegal. Not sure what the outcome was.

You could argue about the ethics of some of the practices used to avoid tax but they aren't usually illegal. In the end it was threats to their reputation that brought about some change although there will need to changes to tax laws to sort this all out but I think that it's a very complex and time consuming job.

What amazes me is that Starbucks produces something that apparently tastes like shit, paddy water, mud or engine degreaser ect. but never tastes like coffee but millions worldwide pay large amounts of money for it.

Are they just brilliant or are their customers stupid. Either way it's pretty astounding.

[zyphodb]

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!

Somchai Watchingporn.....

[Baloo22]

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

The high standards of providing products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for Starbucks to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Starbucks certainly knows much more about the subject than you. Proven success!

As far as your sideways snark "Not paying taxes..."; That's just more "&lt;deleted&gt;" from the from the talk-out-of-your-arse crowd.

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.

Ah Baloo22, could it be that you have a "Vested Interest" in Starbucks? Are they paying you BIG BUCKS????

Nope! I have no "Vested Interest" in Starbucks! And, they are not paying me so much as one satang.

[Baloo22]

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.

As far as I know you're right that they didn't break any laws. The same with Amazon, Google ect although I believe there was an investigation into Google as some of their practices looked as if they might have been illegal. Not sure what the outcome was.

You could argue about the ethics of some of the practices used to avoid tax but they aren't usually illegal. In the end it was threats to their reputation that brought about some change although there will need to changes to tax laws to sort this all out but I think that it's a very complex and time consuming job.

What amazes me is that Starbucks produces something that apparently tastes like shit, paddy water, mud or engine degreaser ect. but never tastes like coffee but millions worldwide pay large amounts of money for it.

Are they just brilliant or are their customers stupid. Either way it's pretty astounding.

The key point being that if the citizens of UK were upset at the legally allowed amount of taxes that Starbucks was paying, they should be screaming at their Ministers of Parliament, not at Starbucks. Neither an individual nor a company like Starbucks has any legal or ethical obligation to pay more taxes than they law requires them to do.

As far as the taste of Starbucks coffee; People have widely varying tastes in coffee and opinions on what is "good coffee" for them. Apparently, millions of people have determined that they like the taste of Starbucks coffee and it's the right coffee for them. And those millions have decided to spend their money to buy it. I don't have a problems with people paying their own money to drink Starbucks coffee. I don't have a problem with those that choose to drink other brands of coffee either.

Of course, we will shortly have the usual gaggle of ThaiVisa wannabe-coffee-snobs and self-anointed coffee experts jumping out of the bushes to tell us how bad Starbucks coffee is and what coffee we are supposed to be drinking!

[catweazle]

As Starbucks is an American company, and America is the number one "sue anyone for f#$$ing anything and get rich by just doing that" country, it was no big surprise that this Starbung thing would get Starbucks' lawyers jump on it quickly.

On the other hand - how difficult can it be to find a good catchy name for a franchise that does not imply mockery, copycatery (is this an actual word in the dictionary?) and that does not insult people in any way (unlike the Hitler logo thing)?

Logo design and advertising was my bread and butter for almost 10 years and I love logo design and can tell you that it takes just a few private and quiet minutes of being relaxed and distracted either in a car, on a bus, on a bike, at a beach or even on the toilet for a good advertising professional to come up with a couple of good ideas.

Thailand has some very good artists and clever and educated people, thus it always shocks me to see that the vast majority still indulges in bluntly copying stuff instead of coming up with their own ideas. Guess the problem lies in the school system where children are taught endless repetition instead of thinking for themselves, do problem solving exercises, etc... So here we got the culprit; it's the educational system in Thailand!

This said, perhaps Star#$$ks could - instead of suing the $#it out of some small coffee cart owners - invest a few of their billions in the Thai educational system and stage an example for how to get good things out of the bad...

Edited November 7, 2013 by catweazle

[MGP]

At the Red Shirt camp in Axis Road there is a cafe vendor named STAR MAEO COFFEE.

I am wondering if Starbucks will strike again.

[maxme]

At the Red Shirt camp in Axis Road there is a cafe vendor named STAR MAEO COFFEE.

I am wondering if Starbucks will strike again.

There are lots of these spread out through Thailand. It's not only Starbucks that has this kind of problems. A lot of Thais don't get, don't care what the fuss is about, yet go beserk when others are mimicing their businesses.

Yesterday I was at Starbucks at a mall outside Bangkok. As this is about one and a half hour's drive from where I live, safe to say there aren't many foreigners visiting that mall. And when I was approaching the counter, I heard a girl talk to her boyfriend in Thai behind me. She asked him:

"Why do farangs like to come to Starbucks so much?"

I turned around and asked her in Thai:

"You do know this is an American franchise? So the question is if you don't like foreigners why are you here buying their coffee?"

They left pretty quick after that comment.

People here are easily duped into believing they are the righteous ones and whatever they do is alright because it's their country. True but it ain't all their money and they need to learn, you want to be part of the world, get all that dough, you got to learn to play it by the rules.

[bigbamboo]

Of course if Starbucks ignored them no one would be any the wiser. It's not as if they make the best in coffee in Thailand anyway.

[Mentors]

Except Hipsters who needs Starbucks?

[fab4]

There are lots of these spread out through Thailand. It's not only Starbucks that has this kind of problems. A lot of Thais don't get, don't care what the fuss is about, yet go beserk when others are mimicing their businesses.

Yesterday I was at Starbucks at a mall outside Bangkok. As this is about one and a half hour's drive from where I live, safe to say there aren't many foreigners visiting that mall. And when I was approaching the counter, I heard a girl talk to her boyfriend in Thai behind me. She asked him:

"Why do farangs like to come to Starbucks so much?"

I turned around and asked her in Thai:

"You do know this is an American franchise? So the question is if you don't like foreigners why are you here buying their coffee?"

They left pretty quick after that comment.

People here are easily duped into believing they are the righteous ones and whatever they do is alright because it's their country. True but it ain't all their money and they need to learn, you want to be part of the world, get all that dough, you got to learn to play it by the rules.

"I heard a girl talk to her boyfriend in Thai behind me. She asked him:

"Why do farangs like to come to Starbucks so much?"

I turned around and asked her in Thai:

"You do know this is an American franchise? So the question is if you don't like foreigners why are you here buying their coffee?"

They left pretty quick after that comment."

I wonder why..............

Are we supposed to be impressed by your knowledge of the Thai Lanuage or your obvious people skills?

[maxme]

Both actually... If one wants to understand why people do what they do, you have to learn their language. Do I detect envy in that sarcastic reply or just the notion I look down at Thais?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[fab4]

Both actually... If one wants to understand why people do what they do, you have to learn their language. Do I detect envy in that sarcastic reply or just the notion I look down at Thais?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Not at all. I just wonder why you use those language skills to talk to complete strangers, assume they don't like foreigners and tell them so. A bit paranoid, I think

Edited May 12, 2014 by fab4

[maxme]

Both actually... If one wants to understand why people do what they do, you have to learn their language. Do I detect envy in that sarcastic reply or just the notion I look down at Thais?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Not at all. I just wonder why you use those language skills to talk to complete strangers, assume they don't like foreigners and tell them so. A bit paranoid, I think

Not really, I enjoy talking with strangers. That is those who like to do the same, however after have living here for awhile you notice a few things. Such as those who ask innocently and those who ask simply because they feel inferior and need someone to blame for their insecurity. My fault that I didn't mention the look they threw at the mrs and me.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand