besides all that, I await the inevitable post about the body size of of the roller girls...cause that ads so much to the conversation.

One appears to be selling coffee; the other, pain.

After all, at least RCR loves Seattle, whereas Starbucks and the Sonics can go dip themselves in an acid bath ...

No I mean like is it like the NFL? Or WWF? Or halfway between (i.e. American Gladiators)? Do you really have to get there at 5 AM? Do you have to stay the full 19 hours? It it possible to know who is ahead? Is the only thing to eat hot dogs? That cost $7 each? Is there beer? It's not like the James Caan thing right?

As tsm puts it, "it's some fun shit." Though apparently others here feel the shark has been jumped. IMHO, jumping the shark has also jumped the shark.

Please discontinue the use of your logo immediately. I've been using the "stars inside of a circle" design for more than sixty years now.

If you do not desist immediately, don't be surprised if an Adamantium shield comes crashing through your window some afternoon.

Best regards,

Captain America (Deceased)

Please discontinue the use of your logo immediately. I've been using the "stars inside of a circle" design for more than sixty years now.

If you do not desist immediately, don't be surprised if an Adamantium shield comes crashing through your window some afternoon.

Best regards,

Captain America (Deceased)

No, they don't. None of them do. And we endorse their asshattery when we make excuses FOR them.

As someone pointed out above, the proximity and similarity of the goods sold under the logos aren't close--coffee vs. roller derby. Additionally, no one is going to be confused about whether Starbucks is running Rat City. And, while policing your mark is important, Starbucks is not even close to abandoning their trademark.

#22, I disagree with you. Trademark law developed as a consumer protection, a measure against unfair competition, so that people don't get duped into buying a shit product from someone deceptively copying a successful business' efforts and ideas. That's why companies w/ registered, or protected, trademarks have a duty to police the use of their mark. Of course some companies will overstep. But the alternative is an immediate lawsuit or inaction. Then anyone can identify a successful business' widget, create a lesser quality copy, label it with the first company's label, and trick the public into buying it by passing it off as the first company's product.

And copyright law, "inane protectionist corporate suckuppery"? I'll leave that for another day.

but the rcrg logo? circles and stars are pretty basic design elements, even more so in derby, where diy budgets require images that can be reproduced cheaply and cleanly, shrunk down or blown up. my old league's logo featured a wheel/circle, and had stars in it. my new league's logo is inside a circle.

the rcrg logo does not have a 'starbucks look'. its got a 'derby look'.

Please discontinue the use of your logo immediately. I've been using the "stars inside of a circle" design for more than sixty years now.

If you do not desist immediately, don't be surprised if an Adamantium shield comes crashing through your window some afternoon.

Best regards,

Captain America (Deceased)

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7289/sealng0.gif

and Mike Daisey:
thats why I said after "It really doesn't have to be this way"... I really despise how business conducts itself and the passes it gets as the "ultimate good" we should all aspire and give ourselves over to.

in effect all i was saying is that we are over a barrel. maybe too pessimistic, still, its pretty much the fuckery of reality.

theres no excuse nor forgiverry for that kind of shittery.

gack

Derby City Roller Girls
Penn Jersey Roller Derby
Monsters of the Midwest
Psych Ward Sirens
Dutchland Rollers
Stateline Roller Derby Divas
Hamilton Harlots
Providence Roller Derby
Dixie Derby Girls
Assassination City
Steel City Derby Demons
Philly Roller Girls
Battleground Roller Derby
Santa Cruz Roller Girls
Montreal Roller Derby
Sault Roller Girls
Gotham Girls
Hard Knox Roller Derby

and this is where i got tired, and figured the point was made. the second that anyone walks up to any of these skaters expecting a venti something or other, i'll hear out starbuck's argument.

until then, if you're on one of these leagues, i say you start writing to starbucks now.

starbucks does not own basic clip art shapes.

they're not even in the same place on the logos, and they're used for a pretty universal purpose (one that LOTS of logos use such shapes for) - to demarcate the space between words, not to indicate any sort of corporate identity.

He'll be after the tetherball crowd pretty soon.

You better watch out Timmy! Starbucks lawyers will be contacting you shortly.

If the government had incentives to be better at adapting to unintended or unforseen consequences maybe i wouldnt be so down on government. but to blame starbucks for doing what is required of them not only for their benefit in the name of consumer protection as stated by the government, and without revision by the government...well thats just nuts even if you are as smart and eloquent as point x point.

(maybe they can use some of that money to buy new jackboots... j/k).

Since Starbucks' logo would likely qualify as a "famous" mark, it therefore gains additional protection against dilution. The question is not whether there is a likelihood of confusion, because famous marks are protected from blurring, tarnishment, or free-riders.

Blurring:
"Suppose an upscale restaurant calls itself "Tiffany." There is little danger that the consuming public will think it's dealing with a branch of the Tiffany jewelry store if it patronizes this restaurant. But when consumers next see the name "Tiffany" they may think about both the restaurant and the jewelry store, and if so the efficacy of the name as an identifier of the store will be diminished. Consumers will have to think harder — incur as it were a higher imagination cost — to recognize the name as the name of the store"

Tarnishment:
"Now suppose that the "restaurant" that adopts the name "Tiffany" is actually a striptease joint. Again, and indeed even more certainly than in the previous case, consumers will not think the striptease joint under common ownership with the jewelry store. But because of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to proceed by association, every time they think of the word "Tiffany" their image of the fancy jewelry store will be tarnished by the association of the word with the strip joint."

Free-Riding:
"Suppose the "Tiffany" restaurant in our first hypothetical example is located in Kuala Lumpur and though the people who patronize it (it is upscale) have heard of the Tiffany jewelry store, none of them is ever going to buy anything there, so that the efficacy of the trademark as an identifier will not be impaired. If appropriation of Tiffany's aura is nevertheless forbidden by an expansive concept of dilution, the benefits of the jewelry store's investment in creating a famous name will be, as economists say, "internalized" — that is, Tiffany will realize the full benefits of the investment rather than sharing those benefits with others — and as a result the amount of investing in creating a prestigious name will rise."

Ty v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509 (7th. Cir. 2002), accessed at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/306/306.F3d.509.02-1771.html.

So I guess that Starbucks is trying to protect themselves from confused kids under 3 1/2 that might walk by themselves into a RCR shop and ask for a double mochachino half-calf...wait, RCR doesn't sell any sort of coffee beverages.

Problem solved.

#8 seems to be the only one with a clue.

Dilution, either by blurring or by tarnishment, is not as strong of a claim as infringement, especially since the mark is registered. The burden of proof and potential damage awards are more favorable to Starbucks for an infringement claim than for dilution. And free-riding is purely a state claim.

In the examples you quote, the junior user's mark is identical to the famous mark. That clearly is not the situation w/ Rat City's logo. Besides, parody is permissible if the goods are non-competing--coffee and roller derby are non-competing goods.

Does anyone seriously think anyone will confuse Roller Derby girls with that expensive dessert-in-a-cup joint because of similar logos?

as an added comment - yes, there's a black ring with white lettering, broken up by stars. which, as has been noted by myself and others, is hardly a unique motif, particularly to roller derby. if we were all somehow rendered illiterate, and presented only with this ring, without context, i doubt a single one of us would be able to link it to a brand identity.

the features that ARE immediately recognizable (the mermaid and the rollergirl) could not be more different. one is rendered in negative space. the other is not. the stylistic approaches are very different. one is a stupid reference to a fairytale about self-sacrifice for romantic love. the other is a cartoon chick with a shiner.

and #45, i'm guessing you meant me at 32, instead of 33. so, one of a list of derby logos that use similar motifs to rcrg is a rip off of a logo that is totally unrelated to starbucks, but also uses similar motifs to the starbucks logo. i'm not sure if you're agreeing with my point, disagreeing with it, or you just hate the santa cruz girls.

Additionally, we covered Fair Use and Parody law in a communications class I took, it seemed that one of the most important factors in the lawsuit was the parody's effect on the original's value. Would anyone be able to argue that Starbucks sells less coffee because a roller derby league has a similar logo?

I'm writing an email to Starbucks right now. Essentially telling them off. I've even defended these bastards on the Seattle-PI opinion forums. I worked for them for a year and a half. Fuckers. Not stepping foot in their stores again unless they call this off.

Seriously: After working for them and shopping at their store for over a decade, and going to RCRG for the last season and a half, I never saw the RCRG logo and thought "Starbucks". You'd think it would have....