Starbucks Stands Its Ground(s) On Trademark

Posted by Abe Sauer on September 16, 2010 01:45 PM

It could be a scene from a satire or a weepy romantic-comedy. It certainly wouldn't be accused of being a creative scene. But alas, Starbucks has gone and done something that is laughably prosaic. The worst part is, it didn't have a choice.

Boulders Coffee Lounge in England, a small mom and pop cafe located in the picturesque village of Borth, has acquiesced to a cease and desist order from Starbucks regarding the logo used by the small operation.

The Seattle-based coffee giant claimed, perfectly within its legal rights, that the Lounge's logo infringed on the coffee giant's trademark. Green and black, curricular, with stars, the British shop's logo was not an exact match, but clearly had too much in common with Starbucks' iconic mermaid logo for the coffee purveyor to let it slide.

The owner of the shop claimed it was an innocent mistake, and told the BBC that "We do an excellent cup of coffee at very reasonable prices, with good service, and I hope those who visited us were not too disappointed to find they were not in a Starbucks."

Starbucks has been extra-vigilant as of late about brand dilution through the unfair use or mimicry of its logo and trademarks. In December 2009, Starbucks unsuccessfully went after an East Coast coffee house over its "Charbucks" blend.

For years, the coffee giant has been mocked for driving mom and pop coffee shops out of business, coming into town and driving local cafes to financial ruin. This reputation has many trying to profit by mimicking the trademarks of Starbucks by both deriding them and imitating them.

What everyone seems to forget is that Starbucks' rise more than a decade ago did more than any other brand to drive the lucrative coffee house market, from which all coffee brands now benefit.

For better or worse, Starbucks democratized specialty coffees and introduced a whole new demographic to the premium-priced coffee trade. Now it is just trying to protect itself against brand erosion, even in the tiny hamlet of Borth.

Image via

More about: Legal, Trademarks, Starbucks, Logos

The Fount - Branding and Design says:

Starbucks are their brand, plain and simple. They need to protect the one most important thing they have.

September 17, 2010 02:40 AM #

Lance Winslow says:

Starbucks must rigorously defend it's brand and logo, I applaud that, especially considering the vast amount of dollars they've spent building it up.

On a side note; as a customer I am blown away by the double talk of it's branding. It claims to be hip and in, and up with the times. But did you know you can't even re-load your Starbucks Card using PayPal online? That's just stupid, and I wonder what incompetent individual there, made that decision? If they are listening they may contact me so I can read them the riot act.

September 17, 2010 04:25 AM #

David Veal says:

I hope many of my (obviously smaller) clients defend their trademarks as vigorously. I work hard enough to make them original.

September 17, 2010 07:59 AM #

Ripe, Inc. says:

Though we strongly support our small, locally owned coffee shops and drink only fair trade coffee... I agree with the Starbucks point of view. And I imagine Boulders Coffee Lounge could benefit greatly with this increased exposure. This is the perfect opportunity to increase a loyal anti-Starbucks customer base, so I hope they take advantage of what initially looks like a stroke of bad luck.

September 17, 2010 10:59 AM #

A Sauer says:

I agree completely. I think trying to be like Starbucks is the wrong route for small operations. Instead, they should focus on, as you said, a clientele that sees value in NOT going to Starbucks. There are many.

September 17, 2010 11:38 AM #