Comments

1
I don't even understand the point they're trying to make.
2
I am a huge fan of the parody exception, and so I am somewhat dismayed that their FAQ makes the whole thing sound like a money-grab on a technicality; I imagine we'll get some case law soon enough, most likely taking a bunch of other, more reasonable uses with it.
3
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest it's most likely NOT legal - it's going to be very, very difficult for the purveyors of this to prove it falls under the "parody exception" to copywrite law. In addition, I would imagine use of the actual SB logo probably violates trademark, especially if they're actually charging $$ for services.
4
Dumb Slog? Oh wait....
5
@1 my sentiments exactly. is it any <mild perjorative>starbucks or is it starbucks somehow lacking a voice? a whole lotta money (and lawyers-to-come) for a why-bother message.

i even read one tin-foil-hat that it's a parody in order to prove the necessity to strengthen trademarks against parody. that's how all over the place the response is to this.
6
Their FAQ states that they're just prefixing the brand name with Dumb in order to use it for free. No satire or other fair use riffs appear to be in the offing. This doesn't pass a fair use sniff test IMO.
7
It isn't legal. It is maybe legal. Fair use, which the parody exception falls under, is more of a defense against copyright/TM violation. You cannot simply declare something to be fair use and know that it is legal. Given the way this has been executed, as well as the cafe's FAQ, I find it hard to believe that a fair use defense would be successful when (not if) Starbucks sues them for violating its IP rights.
8
It's also about the laziest, "dumb"est & pointless possible parody one could do about Starbucks. You had all the money for a store and THAT'S what you came up with???
9
The parody protection from copyright is a genuinely important thing. Assuming this store is intended to remain open and to make money selling coffee, it amounts to an attempt to destroy the protection genuine parodies enjoy from copyright restrictions. My current assumption is that the proprietors are assholes.
10
@3 - everything was free. they were not making money, only a point. whatever the point is. probably that US Trademark law is silly or something.
11
Dumb Parody
12
This is trademark infringement on an absolutely massive scale. It's not parody, there's no parody exception (that's for copyright law), and it most definitely isn't legal. What's more, the potential civil fines are substantial. Starbucks will sue, and they will bankrupt everyone who had anything to do with this idiotic idea.
13
@12, yup. Parody is not an affirmative defense to trademark infringement. It can operate as an argument why there is no likelihood of confusion. And DS could say it's nominative fair use. But even then, they can only use so much of the mark as is necessary to identify the target of the parody. In any event, their FAQs (along with many people online) conflate trademark law with copyright law--two separate bodies of law with two separate fair use doctrines.
14
It's near Los Angeles. It's a Hollywood stunt. Starbucks almost surely knows and has a part to play.
15
Banksy. Banksy. Banksy. Is what I first thought when I heard about it... just wait, those DUMB cups will be on ebay selling for $100 a pop. (oh, no need to wait - http://tinyurl.com/ks7vnal )
16
They called Starbucks "dumb"? Clever.

This is more a parody of a parody. No idea what the implications of that are for trademark law.
18
Well, towards this being a "viral" stunt. Errybody got played.

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.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.