Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Food & Drink
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Most monsters take on adaptive camouflage to get close to their prey, don't they?
Her point wasn't that they were doing something illegal, it was that they are doing something douche-baggy, not to mention lame.
Not that I am saying that Starbucks is all good or anything, I don't care one way or the other, just saying ... it's not exactly super original or anything.
I dunno, it's like saying, "eh, I don't like our branding anymore, let's try yours."
Competition is a bitch. If you want to run a business get used to it and stop whining.
yes, that's why Matador had to redesign.
Trade dress and presentation of your "product" is a trademarkable "thing." You can't make your restaurant look exactly like a mcdonalds, plop it right next to one, but call it something else, and get away with it.
Linda, you of all people, should know the tenants of free-market capitalism.
Every single old-timey dive bars from Missoula to Rathdrum plans mega lawsuit against Linda Dershang for trademark infringement!
first, the idea that somehow the design of oddfellows or linda's was hers. most design is a refrain of something done before, so proof of infringement is hard to come by. in the case of matador vs peso's, it was a former employee, with intimate knowledge of the designs.
second, get over yourself. starbucks has, like it or not, raised the boats of food/coffee/bar vendors everywhere. tough to swallow, but true. just like Microsoft set off a wave of innovation of its platform.
I'd beg to differ. I think that in the provincial places in this world, they have better things to do than whine about someone stealing their "authenticity" and "image".
Confuse people as to WHAT, exactly? What does it matter whether the place is a Faux-bucks or opened by some random entrepreneur?
provincial is defined as a person or restricted interests or outlook
not saying i disagree with the sentiment.
When a business owner has worked hard to brand their business and Linda has the “old timey” theme running throughout all of hers it must be frustrating having a corporation with nearly unlimited resources do exactly that.
Starbucks is getting really close here, all I am going to say.
That said, imitation and unrestrained commercial competition that drives down the costs to the consumer until the original store goes bankrupt is the American way.
We decided imitation was the sincerest form of flattery. It seemed a better course of action than spalttering their house like Pollack having a grand mal.
not for the purposes of trademark law
also-also, contrary to popular belief, Linda Derschang did not invent the hipster bar nor did she patent the use of paint by number art, roadkill and distressed surfaces as a commercial design motif...
but it's funny that Starbucks is "appropriating" a neighboring business' design after they tried to sue Rat City Rollergirls over their supposedly similar logo...
I mean, I get where Linda's coming from, but the bristling is really from the 'you swiped my idea' vibe. Don't sink to their level: Screw them. Capitol Hill's 15th Ave corridor isn't all that into Starbucks anyway. Most of that neighborhood knows better than to get suckered in by painted-over facades, right?
Rake in the cash from the drinkers and foodies, and let the poseurs have their couple months of fun before they notice the money still isn't come in.
Looks like a sign to put my money where my mouth is and patronize the bar! I'm probably working this weekend anyway, so... bbl
---
But seriously, folks... what is "local"? What is "authentic"? And putting local economic development concerns aside for the moment, why is a local business more virtuous because of its perceived "localness"?
tenets, not tenants.
I think some of the commenters here are reading far too much into Linda's statement, but if I owned the business and saw the giant corporate place next door doing that, I'd be suspicious as well.
Yes, a lot will depend on what they do with the interior - and I'm particularly interested in how far they go to de-emphasize the $tarbuck$ brand: will they not use the logos at all, even on the cups? WILL they go all SW WA logger's den on the place? - because that will be the major determining factor in terms of just how "douchy" this remodel turns out to be.
ZOMG WE HATE STARBUCKS (OR $TARBUCK$ AS I LIKE TO WRYLY REFER TO THEM AND MICRO$OFT) BECAUSE THEY ARE TURNING COFFEE AND BARISTA CULTURE INTO A GENERIC WALMART THAT LOOKS AND TASTES THE SAME WHEREVER YOU GO!
ZOMG WE HATE STARBUCKS (OR $TARBUCK$ AS I LIKE TO WRYLY REFER TO THEM AND MICRO$OFT) BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO RESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THEM AND RETURN TO PULLING SHOTS AND BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS LIKE THE REST OF OUR UNDEREMPLOYED FRIENDS.
That's fucking original. Wait, you're the Uptight Seattleite, aren't you?
and that Starbucks was the one the one the fans started a petition to save...
corny, all of it.
I think "troll" is ad hominem enough for the both of us. Address content or STFU, that's my motto.
Pointing out fallacies and inconsistencies isn't ad hominem. Even if I use sarcasm, all caps, and exclamation points all at once.
or: I'll get some "melanin rich" people to show up and the SPD can shut it down in a week due to "gang activity."
whatever...at least now I have an excuse to go in there.
Linda Der$chang sold it, so it doesn't count. I'm curious where will she open her next Red Robin with "salvaged wood" and taxidermy.
The Canterbury is already a couple of blocks down the street. They got that angle covered already.
Yes, it's lame that Starbucks can't be slightly more original but Linda does what she does well. She should just kick more ass on her next place.
P.S. I liked Starbucks' Awake tea!
that doesn't explain why the matador closed for a week to redecorate. No restaurant closes for a week unless faced with costs that justify it.
anyway, everything settles out of court. The costs of a courtroom battle are completely out of wack with the rewards, especially in TM cases where it's just about impossible to get attorney's fees. Deciding who wins and loses in a lawsuit that settles is sometimes a difficult matter. If your info is correct, then everyone involved in the pesos/matador dustup lost. (which is why TM law needs a change to allow the collection of fees in non-exceptional cases).
Every italian and mexican place looks like they because the restaurants proliferated at a time when the owners were all probably individual families confined to specific geographical areas (and hard working immigrants who probably didn't think to consult lawyers). Lacking federal registration, which is obtainable only if your business is "interstate" (in effect touches multiple states through its regular commerce) your trademark only applies to a limited geographical area and similar business. In that case someone who opens up a place outside of your immediate market can copy whatever they want. By the time the national chains came around, the "immigrant family owned" mexican place or italian place was already everywhere, and the similar deco had become generic enough at the time to render the trade dress completely un trademarkable.
That kind of situation is completely different from the local stuff we've got here. Actually, if linda had developed a bar concept that was based on kitschy mexican restaurant decor for its theme, and opened a few in this area, followed by a fake starbucks looking to confuse customers into thinking it wasn't a starbucks copying the decor, she'd probably have a case.
I dunno - what's an Uptight Seattleite? Someone from Laurelhurst?
funny, 'cause it's true...
I'm finding it hard to believe that the corporate types at Starbucks, in looking to fit in in Seattle while also focusing on returning to their roots, decided to deliberately knock off all of Linda's 'oh-so-original' design choices.
And please, the construction guys have been in Smith every day? That sounds good for Linda ($) and typical of construction workers to hit the closest watering hole for a beer after work. Does anyone believe the design of the coffee shop was not dictated by corporate but left up to the construction crew to determine once they got started on the job?
Advice to Linda- give up the salvia and go back to the coke
Even if it is a Starbucks, why are you so upset? With ALL THOSE BUSINESSES you own, shouldn't it be O.K. for somebody else to take a few of the hipsters' dollars? When somebody other than you tried to open a bar in the old "breakroom" spot, well, you just couldn't let those sleeping dogs lie then either, could you? Grow up.
Starbucks pretending not to be Starbucks but rather 15th Street Coffee or whatever is the point as people like Greg above do understand!
The woman who has opened more indie businesses in the city, without selling out any of them(franchising) should just keep her mouth shut like a good girl cause the big boys and their lawyers will go after her like the Rat City Rollergirls. You don't fuck with Howard Shwartz you do as he says and he does what he wants. He should have hired some original designers.
Indy coffeehouses in this hood or around the world believes themselves to be "unique"....coffeeshops reflects culture-always has always will and guess what THAT is not ownable by anyone.
Enjoy the passion for coffee, anyway it comes.
Indy coffeehouses in this hood or around the world believes themselves to be "unique"....coffeeshops reflects culture-always has always will and guess what THAT is not ownable by anyone.
Enjoy the passion for coffee, anyway it comes.
1) People who hate Linda Derschang
2) People who work for Starbucks
3) People who have an active, irrational, subconsciously self-loathing hatred for hipsters
I understand the business decision on Starbucks' part to try this, and given their history of seizing market share from local competitors nationwide through subversive expansion, this isn't a huge deviation from their traditional practices.
It just isn't going to work because it's predicated on taking advantage of the ignorance of the local populace while preying on the growing trend of people sampling and supporting local, independent coffeehouse by posing as something other than themselves (since their traditional presentation failed to hold market share in that location). And the neighborhood populace, aside from having a wealth of other coffee options, is savvier than that and likely won't appreciate a clear attempt on Starbucks' part to take advantage of their tastes.
Whether or not you find the neighborhood's tendency to corporate backlash irrational is a matter of opinion, but the point is that Starbucks is trying to pull something off that simply won't work here. If they had tried this in half the other neighborhoods in Seattle instead, it likely would have succeeded, but it's likely they chose this alcove of Capitol Hill for a reason. It's a experimental challenge to try and turn the tide of a very real cultural backlash against their company. But now that they've been outed before even re-opening, they probably blew it.