Jump to content

Is using the name "Starbucks" copyrighted?

Carl Thibodeaux

By Carl Thibodeaux,
in General Discussion Forum

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3812 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Perrie Juran

Perrie Juran

Posted
Posted

only the estate owner or starbucks can answer if it's authorized use.

http://pledge5.starbucks.com/pledge5terms

 

TRADEMARK INFORMATION

Starbucks and the Starbucks logo are registered trademarks of Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC under license to Starbucks in the United States, and of Starbucks in other countries. All other Starbucks trademarks, service marks, domain names, logos, and company names referred to on this Site are either trademarks, registered trademarks, service marks, domain names, logos, company names of or are otherwise the property of Starbucks or its affiliates or licensors. In countries where any of the Starbucks trademarks, service marks, domain names, logos and company names are not registered, Starbucks claims other rights associated with unregistered trademarks, service marks, domain names, logos, and company names. Other product or company names referred to on this Site may be trademarks of their respective owners. You may not use any trademark, service mark, domain name, logo, or company name of Starbucks or any third party without permission from the owner of the applicable trademark, service mark, domain name, logo, or company name. You may contact Starbucks by sending an e-mail to Customer Care , or writing to Starbucks at 2401 Utah Ave. S, Seattle, WA 98134 USA, to request written permission to use Materials on this Site for purposes other than stated in these Terms and Conditions or for all other questions relating to this Site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Claireschen Hesten

Claireschen Hesten

Posted
Posted

i've seen starbucks namely the logo used in several places in SL they were all along various road sides somewhere i got a takeaway coffee cup attachment with Tim Horton branding on it (apparently it's a popular coffee chain) really you are not allowed to use someone elses branding with out permission if you don't have permission they would have to report you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innula Zenovka

Innula Zenovka

Posted
Posted

Carl Thibodeaux wrote:

So, do you think i should report them or just move on?

The only people, to my mind, to whom it would be worth reporting the matter would be Starbucks, since they're the only people who can confirm whether or not they've given permission for their trademark to be used in this way, and they're the people who would have to file a DMCA takedown notice before LL could do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randall Ahren

Randall Ahren

Posted
Posted

Starbucks is registered for selling coffee, REAL coffee. Does Starbucks have a trademark registration for moving pixels around around on a computer screen? Take second life for example, what if someone had business in the real world for second life cars, i.e., selling used automobiles. Is there a trademark problem there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amethyst Jetaime

Amethyst Jetaime

Posted
Posted

In addition to being a RL violation. if they don't have written permission in a legal form that is acceptable to the Linden's,its against TOS too.  However, LL sure doesn't go out of their way to enforce it unless they get a complaint because I see people all over SL using RL products brand names or thinly veiled variations, which is also against LL official policy.  Personally I don't think its worth the risk of LL doing a take down if they decided to enforce it, or RL legal problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innula Zenovka

Innula Zenovka

Posted
Posted

Randall Ahren wrote:

Starbucks is registered for selling coffee, REAL coffee. Does Starbucks have a trademark registration for moving pixels around around on a computer screen? Take second life for example, what if someone had business in the real world for second life cars, i.e., selling used automobiles. Is there a trademark problem there?

You'd need specialist IP lawyer to answer that, wouldn't you?    

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randall Ahren

Randall Ahren

Posted
Posted

Not necessarily, just some knowledge of legal provision regarding various forms that intellectual property can take. Trademarks are confined to the channels of trade in which they are used. In particular, trademarks are registered in particular classes. It's possible for someone to have a valid trademark for Second Life Cars for selling cars in the real world and another company to have the the same mark for providing online services without a conflict because the marks are for different classes of goods and services.

The difficulty is for the situation of trademark dilution, which is for famous marks. If the mark is famous enough, the owner can claim that use of the mark by another in an unrelated class dilutes its trademark recognition. Starbucks is pretty famous and could probably make out a case on the basis of dilution of its mark. Second Life isn't quite that famous yet as the mark must be recognizable by a member of the general public as opposed to just being known in a niche market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innula Zenovka

Innula Zenovka

Posted
Posted

Randall Ahren wrote:

 It's possible for someone to have a valid trademark for Second Life Cars for selling cars in the real world and another company to have the the same mark for providing online services without a conflict because the marks are for different classes of goods and services.

Hmm.   I can see the point about different classes of goods and services, so I see why Starbucks might not get very far complaining about Starbucks Autospares or something (though would the autospares shop really be able to use the coffee shop's logo too?).

But this isn't quite the same thing, to my mind.   The point of the Starbucks in SL is precisely that it's a replica of the trademark and logo of the RL coffee shop, which they may be minded to use for their own marketing purposes in SL or to licence for 3d video games or whatever.   I don't know, but it seems a bit dubious to me.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orca Flotta

Orca Flotta

Posted
Posted

Carl Thibodeaux asked:

So, do you think i should report them or just move on?

 

Yes ... and no. It surely is a copyright infringement, so a report would be legally correct.

OTOH what concern is it of yours? Is corporate America paying you a nice income to do their job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randall Ahren

Randall Ahren

Posted
Posted

That's the current state of the law. The problem is that the vast body of law was drafted pre-internet and pre-virtual worlds. There is an interesting article here detailing some of the problems that Starbucks would have in pursuing such a case. A similar situation arose with Taser. Taser's solution was to sue LL, and LL's solution was probably to revise the ToS to avoid future lawsuits and terminate someone's user account for causing this situation. The case was presumably settled, so we don't know how a courts would have ruled on the issue of likelihood of confusion and so forth. I don't think the consuming public would have been likely confused that the virtual taser guns were produced by the company producing the real life stun guns under the same mark.

 ps: What if SL really was a country? Starbucks has no trademark protection in countries where it has not established a presence and which are not part of an international accord. That would be an interesting situation. If Starbucks wants protection in SL it would have to register its mark there and show use in commerce in SL. Perhaps SL should apply to the UN for recognition and start issuing passports. It already has its own currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innula Zenovka

Innula Zenovka

Posted
Posted

Presumably, at least part of Taser's objection was to people using "taser" as a generic name for a type of non-lethal weapon rather than as the brand name of their product.   I don't know much about this, but I'd thought that to maintain that sort of protection you have to be able show you do regularly chase people for using your product name as a generic term.    And clearly LL didn't think the matter worth defending.

But anyway, were the people making this SL "Taser" using the company's logo as well as the name, though?  That seems to me to make a big difference.   I can see that in RL, or at least RL as it is lived in the USA, the fast food chain probably can't stop Bill McDonald from opening McDonald's Used Car Lot, but do the company really have no redress if he sticks up a big pair of Golden Arches at the entrance, too?

In general terms, it just seems to me strange  that someone can use a company's  trademark and logo in SL, thus giving the impression the item is at least made with their approval, without even asking them.   If it is the case, then so be it, but it just strikes me as a very odd state of affairs if, indeed, that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randall Ahren

Randall Ahren

Posted
Posted

As far as LL not thinking the matter worth defending, of course they didn't. That is a common tactic of all big companies. Pressure the ISP, blog hosting service, or whatever, to terminate the individual's service rather than prove your case in court of defamation or some kind of infringement.  

Concerning Starbucks, a lot of the issues could be removed if they simply registered their mark in a class for providing virtual goods and showed use in commerce by using it in SL. They already have a bunch of registrations for starbucks in different classes, the cost of registering in another class should be de minimis to them, including the cost of paying some tier to LL.

What would be interesting, is if the party using the starbucks logo claimed it as their mark for virtual goods as a prior user. That would be really cool. 

Regarding, McDonalds that is the state of the law. Starbucks is a much stronger mark because it is word not traditionally associated with coffee and thus is a unique mark. McDondalds, however, is common surname and not particularly unique. I suppose MacDonalds the food company could go after the car company on the basis of copyright infringement in that the arches are an architectural work.  

Anyway see the McDonald Auto Center at www.mcdonaldautocentre.ca/ or McDonald GMC at www.mcdonaldauto.com/

ps: Yes, you are correct that policing is required for some marks that become generic through common use such as escalator for moving stairs, aspirin for acetylsalicylic acid and heroin for morphine diacetate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mayalily

Mayalily

Posted
Posted

Carl Thibodeaux wrote:

So i teleported to a random estate place to buy some land. They have a coffee shop on the land and it looks like the starbucks logo and a little different and they are calling their coffee shop Starbucks. Is this allowed? Or is this a trademark/copyright they are bypassing and doing something illegal?

According to a survey I took here on SL, infringing on any trademark or logo is not allowed on SL.   Not a sports team name and logo, nor any infringement on a name and logo are allowed in SL.  Where that survey is?  I don't recall, but it was here on the main SL website.   

p.s.  The survey was a LL survey about our knowledge of trademark/copyright infringement, not a survey by a resident.   It was a quiz actually by LL, and I failed a few questions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mayalily

Mayalily

Posted
Posted

Canoro Philipp wrote:

i remember that survey, it was on your account settings, it was needed to be able to upload mesh.

I don't remember where it was as I don't upload anything, but account settings is possible.  I think I got that quiz or survey about LL's TOS regarding IPR when I used the LL website page to get lindens instead of getting lindens inworld like I usually do.  Anyhow, it's here somewhere.  Take the quiz folks if you find it, it's interesting. 

I cannot speculate on whether Starbucks would care or not or consider it free publicity because as residents we cannot speculate on what a company "might" like since it is against TOS as I recall from the quiz. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3812 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...