What happened to the starbucks copy coffee shop and why this is ok

[N47HAN]

Took this in MBK today , wonder why starbucks haven't gone after these too?

Maybe because the logo is in white and not green ?

Thought close enough they'd of tried to stop them.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[gerry123]

dont see any mention directly to coffee i think that from their confrontation a while back with a street vendor

that any competition a good advert

[Costas2008]

I think they had a negative campaign from the Thai media and FB with the street coffee vendor that used their name and logo, so now they try to keep a low profile.

Saying that, I don't find that picture amusing at all.

They should go after him.

[RolandRat]

Maybe they dont know ?

[gerry123]

starbucks copy coffee shop as you quoted was a low profile street vendor not a shop

and as many posters at the time i recall said good on yer mate

didnt read any posse vigilante calls at that time

[N47HAN]

starbucks copy coffee shop as you quoted was a low profile street vendor not a shop

and as many posters at the time i recall said good on yer mate

didnt read any posse vigilante calls at that time

There wasnt any vigilante posts , never said there was , but starbucks were pissed off about him.

Not really the most interesting post i agree , however it did strike me how similar they are and they are both obviously coffee shops thats all.

Ah well nothing to see here i guess , move on...

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[theguyfromanotherforum]

This is really funny.

[smokie36]

I'd drink at the other one....the coffee must be better.

[samran]

I'd hazard a lawyer answer even though I'm not one:

- the cost and the bad PR wouldn't be worth the effort.

- given they are right next door, you could argue there is no way one could mistake the shop for a Starbucks, and hence, harder to argue breach of TM or IP rights.

[DLock]

Saw that a few weeks ago and did find it quite funny.

I'm sure there Starbucks legal is all over this - it's just too similar not too...and right next door...it just takes time via the courts.

Not sure how well I'd deal with that if I owned that Starbucks...don't think it would be pretty.

[dddave]

Not trying to defend the big bully but trademark law is interesting. If a company does not actively defend it's trademark, even against seemingly insignificant infringement, it can be more difficult to defend when a really serious infringement occurs.

As I recall in the Starbucks case a few years ago, they made it very much worthwhile for the vendor to change his logo and just go away.

[Seastallion]

Not trying to defend the big bully but trademark law is interesting. If a company does not actively defend it's trademark, even against seemingly insignificant infringement, it can be more difficult to defend when a really serious infringement occurs.

As I recall in the Starbucks case a few years ago, they made it very much worthwhile for the vendor to change his logo and just go away.

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is possibly an attempt from this cafe to get a pay out.

The ramifications of the precedent do not look good for Starbucks....and I won't be lamenting that.

My guess is that Starbucks Legal will send in a person to assess the coffee and service, and if it is reasonable, then they will do something. If the imitator sells horrible coffee (hard to get more horrible than Starbucks, but what the hey) then Legal will possibly advise to let them sink on their own lack of merit.

[JournalistsAreLiars]

Because when millions of stupid people pay you 100++ for a coffee you dont care anything anymore...

[tubby johnson]

Daddy Warbucks ain't pleased about Starbucks either.

[JusMe]

The street vendor is still there and selling coffee, but his name and logo have been completely changed. I didn't pause long enough to see if there was any evidence at all of the big kerfuffle but nothing obvious.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Daddy Warbucks ain't pleased about Starbucks either.

I couldn't care less.

[bkkgooner]

Not trying to defend the big bully but trademark law is interesting. If a company does not actively defend it's trademark, even against seemingly insignificant infringement, it can be more difficult to defend when a really serious infringement occurs.

As I recall in the Starbucks case a few years ago, they made it very much worthwhile for the vendor to change his logo and just go away.

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is possibly an attempt from this cafe to get a pay out.

The ramifications of the precedent do not look good for Starbucks....and I won't be lamenting that.

My guess is that Starbucks Legal will send in a person to assess the coffee and service, and if it is reasonable, then they will do something. If the imitator sells horrible coffee (hard to get more horrible than Starbucks, but what the hey) then Legal will possibly advise to let them sink on their own lack of merit.

What's a nicer coffee than Starbucks in Bangkok? Fancy a good read and a decent cup of coffee during the week