I happened to be guest lecturing all afternoon in our UG marketing core and students and others started emailing about this to me this morning, so I worked this example into my afternoon classes. Each had at least 3-4 students who had of the story since it seemed to be viral first and regular news outlets second.
My other concern about the parody is that I think Dumb Starbucks was dumb and took more of the Starbucks logo and other trade dress than needed to call up the subject of the parody. Mickey Mouse (well Disney actually) beat Air Pirates with that argument and Air Pirates was doing a parody comic book that arguably was more first amendment and less commercial. I am assuming Dumb Starbucks will eventually charge for coffee even though ti gave it away this past weekend. That makes Dumb Starbucks more commercial than First Amendment and quite franking just labeling it dumb is not much of a parody.
Still courts are remarkably unpredictable in deciding parody cases and Dumb Starbucks looks more like a free rider than intelligent social commentary.
Ross D. Petty
Professor of Marketing Law and Faculty Scholar
Babson College.
________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jody Blanke [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dumb Starbucks
I do not beleive there is anyway that Dumb Starbucks will prevail in this. Starbucks will be all over them. I had an article about trademark pardoy published in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal about 10 years ago (it is available online for download if anyone is interested at http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol13/iss4/2/ ). What is ironic to me is that my interest in doing that piece was largely fueled by what I thought was a very heavy-handed and unjust attack by Starbucks against a T-shirt artist who was selling T-shirts with a Starbuck trademark parody that (in my opinion) was clearly parodic. The District Court for the Northern District of California found against Starbucks on both the copyright infringement claim and the trademark infringement claim, but for it on the dilution claim. The artist was unable to fund an appeal and entered into a settlement agreemnt with Starbucks. It was my opinion then, that the Ninth Circuit would have found for the artist on that claim had it been appealed. This Dumb Starbucks situation is entirely different.
Jody
Jody Blanke
Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law
Stetson School of Business & Economics
Mercer University
3001 Mercer University Drive
Atlanta, GA 30341
(678) 547-6313
ssbea.mercer.edu/blanke
________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Petty, Ross [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dumb Starbucks
I agree Starbucks has attorneys, but they just lost to Charbucks and Louie Vuiton lost to Chewey Vuiton on a parody arguement. It was unable to prove harm under dilution. As far as infringement Meagan Adams of Starbucks says "This is obviously not Starbucks." I would reprimand her.
Ross Petty
Professor of Marketing Law
Babson College.
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Henry Lowenstein [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions on my mind...
Terrence,
My two cents below:
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Lau [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 1:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Questions on my mind...
1) Does the Lanham Act's parody exception really allow a coffee shop to call itself "Dumb Starbucks" and otherwise sell coffee? See http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-dumb-starbucks-20140210,0,2147810.story#axzz2swdfiNSs
I do not think this will hold water one bit legally. This appears to be a very blatant in light of the Trademark Dilution Acts and amendments. Using the word "dumb" and the exact trademark appears hardly a parody. It may even rise to slander of product or mark. Starbucks has big bucks for attorneys. Expect to see them go into action.
2) Congress has defunded enforcement of the incandescent light bulb ban. Can companies willfully break federal law if Congress says the law won't get any money for enforcement?
Well in theory perhaps they can. In ObamaCare (ACA) the IRS was denied enforcement mechanism to collect the individual penalty for not having health insurance. The only mechanism they have is to deduct it from any potential refund. On the light bulbs, only if a business determined it was more profitable than the long term penalty risk. Here in South Carolina, there was at one time a bill in the legislature to give the State the power to make the light bulbs and then defy the Federal law under the 10th Amendment. Well, SC has a history of that (unsuccessfully) doesn't it?
3) Why, in the worst winter for airline cancellations in many years, have there not been stories of passengers stuck in planes for 9 hours? Sometimes it's what doesn't make the news that is news.
Real journalism seems to have died some time ago. The stories probably got pushed off the news due to the higher priority of Justin Bieber's legal problems. :)
______________
Terence Lau
Associate Professor
Chair, Management and Marketing
Tel: 937-229-4556<tel:937-229-4556>; Fax: 937-229-3788<tel:937-229-3788>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Henry Lowenstein, PhD
Professor of Management and Law
James P. and Elizabeth R. Blanton College of Business Leadership Professor
E. Craig Wall Sr. College of Business Administration
Coastal Carolina University
P.O. Box 261954
Conway, SC 29528-6054 USA
(843) 349-2827 Office
(843) 349-2455 Fax
[log in to unmask]
www.coastal.edu
Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for the use of the named recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the named recipient, kindly contact the sender and delete this message. Unauthorized use or distribution of this message or its contents is prohibited
|
