Starbucks v.Charbucks
Stating that the anti-dilution law should be used as “a scalpel, not a
battle axe,” Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York once
again found that Starbucks failed to prove that the famous STARBUCKS trademark
was likely to be diluted by the use of the marks CHARBUCKS BLEND, MR.
CHARBUCKS, and MISTER CHARBUCKS on dark roasted coffee. In her opinion, she
ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant, Wolfe’s Borough
Coffee, Inc., and that the long-running case be closed.
This is the third ruling that Judge Swain has made against Starbucks. It
may not be the final word, however, as Starbucks may appeal yet again.
The dispute began in 1997, when Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, which does
business as Black Bear Micro Roastery, started selling
coffee under the names CHARBUCKS BLEND, MR. CHARBUCKS, and MISTER CHARBUCKS
from a retail outlet called “The Den” in New Hampshire. Starbucks sent Wolfe’s
a demand letter, but Wolfe’s refused to accede because “basically this was a
large corporation coming at me and telling us what to do.” Starbucks then
brought suit in the Southern District of New York.
After a two-day trial in 2005, Judge Swain ruled against Starbucks on all of its
claims. In her opinion, Judge Swain held that the two marks must be “very
or substantially similar” in order for dilution to occur, and that the use of
MR. before CHARBUCKS alone defeats Starbuck’s dilution claim.
Good on them. Starbucks had their fair share of oher taking advantage of their design but in the same time the tend to take things too far. What is the actual threat to the brand in this case - I see none.
ReplyDelete